Oral Answers to Questions

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Worcestershire Health Economy

Peter Luff: If he will make a statement on the financial situation of the Worcestershire health economy.

John Hutton: Primary care trusts in Worcestershire will receive a total increase of £118.9 million over the next three years, representing a cash increase of more than 30 per cent. All primary care trusts in Worcestershire are forecasting financial balance for this financial year. However, as the hon. Gentleman will know, discussions are continuing between the strategic health authority and Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS trust to ensure that the trust achieves financial balance over the next two financial years.

Peter Luff: I am grateful for that answer. The Minister will know that the budgetary problems of the South Worcestershire primary care trust, which were caused at least in part by an obligation to meet centrally imposed targets, led to significant cuts in local health services early this year. As the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS trust struggles with its own precarious financial position, caused in part by an obligation to meet the new waiting time targets, can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that there will be no further cuts to patient services in Worcestershire, and that the new GP contract will be fully implemented?

John Hutton: Yes. There will not be any cuts in front-line health care services in Worcestershire—quite the opposite: we are looking to expand health care services in the county because there is a need for that. The new GP contract will be fully funded and it will be properly implemented, as we have repeatedly made clear. We are trying to address the issues, of concern to the hon. Gentleman and many others in Worcestershire, affecting the hospitals trust. That task would be greatly furthered if we had the hon. Gentleman's support for the additional investment that we are providing.

Michael Foster: Has my right hon. Friend made an assessment of the impact on the finances of the Worcestershire health economy of diverting cash from the NHS to pay for tax relief on private medical insurance?

John Hutton: Yes, I have made such an assessment—and it would wipe out the additional £118 million of investment, so I really do not think that the Conservative party's proposals would help to enhance the NHS in Worcestershire. Indeed, they would make the job of the NHS in Worcestershire immeasurably more difficult.

Michael Spicer: When will work begin on the long awaited new hospital in Malvern in Worcestershire? If the Minister does not know the answer to that, will he write to me about it by the end of the week?

John Hutton: I do not know the answer, but as the hon. Gentleman has asked me to, I will write to him by the end of the week.

Tim Yeo: Are not the people of Worcestershire being let down by the Government? Tax is up, spending is up, but activity has barely increased. Only six days ago, the NHS chief executive admitted that average waiting times are getting longer. Last year only one patient in 400 was able to exercise choice and then only if they had been waiting for more than six months. Against that background and in view of the delays to the NHS information technology project, will the Minister confirm that the promises made this morning by the Secretary of State in No. 10 Downing street about increasing patient choice are just pie in the sky?

John Hutton: No, I would not accept that, but I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. There are no delays to the NHS IT programme, which will be delivered and implemented on time—because of the additional investment that we are putting into the NHS, which the hon. Gentleman is obviously not prepared to match. As to waiting times, they are falling, rather than rising as they did under the previous Government. Given the hon. Gentleman's desire to represent a new type of politics, he might have had the courtesy and the manners to acknowledge that in the House today.

NHS Dentistry

Colin Breed: If he will make a statement on his Department's proposals to improve access to NHS dentistry.

Rosie Winterton: The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 is the most radical reform of NHS dentistry since 1948, and means that the £1.2 billion currently held centrally will be devolved to primary care trusts to commission NHS dentistry. In the meantime we have allocated £59 million to improve access to NHS dentistry where there are currently acute short-term problems.

Colin Breed: I thank the Minister for that response, but her predecessor told me in January that the Government would indeed strive to put more investment into NHS dentistry services in Cornwall. We have seen no visible evidence of that. Indeed, children are now being deregistered from NHS dentistry. Such inequity cannot be allowed to continue on. Can the Minister direct any specific investment into areas such as Cornwall so that NHS dentistry can be brought up to at least the average in the UK nationally?

Rosie Winterton: I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman makes and, in the longer term, we will radically overhaul NHS dentistry. However, in the meantime, we have set up 22 new dental clinics in Cornwall since 1998. They provide treatment on the NHS to people who are not registered with an NHS dentist. We are also considering the hon. Gentleman's area as one of the pilot areas for the new system of local commissioning of NHS dentistry, so that we can ensure that dentists stay with the NHS and encourage others to return to it.

Peter Pike: My hon. Friend will know that Burnley is one of the worst places in the country for obtaining NHS dental treatment. There is a gaping hole in provision. We welcome what the Government have done and the changes that will take place in 2005, but what can be done to provide urgent dental treatment on the NHS for people who need it now?

Rosie Winterton: I refer back to the £59 million that I have announced in the past few months that will be used to address exactly the problems that my hon. Friend mentions. That will happen through the NHS support team, which is funded by £9 million, backed up by around £35 million in revenue support. The NHS support team visited my hon. Friend's area in August, October and again in November. A local action plan is being drawn up to address some of the real problems that I know exist in his area and I will let him have further details in due course.

Hugo Swire: When the Minister wrote to me in answer to a query that I raised about the critical state of dentistry in east Devon, she mentioned the figure of £65.2 million to support the changes. I notice that this morning that figure has fallen to £59 million. Does the Minister agree with me and my constituent Dr. Kenneth Croft that there is no point in improving access to dentists if they do not exist in the first place? Will she consider ensuring that some of the new money is spent on general dental practitioners, who are at the forefront of dentistry, rather than on IT training, recruitment and so forth?

Rosie Winterton: Some of the money will go to dentists in general dental service. That is the whole idea. Some of the money can be used for capital expenditure—for example, if a dentist wishes to expand the surgery area or provide extra facilities in the clinic. In terms of revenue, extra money can be spent on more sessions for NHS patients. In the longer term, we are reviewing the dental work force to ensure that we have more trainees and encourage more people to return to dentistry, especially women. Overall, the hon. Gentleman should remember that this state of affairs arose because of the way in which the Conservatives behaved in the 1990s, which led to NHS dentists—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Ian Lucas.

Ian Lucas: Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning those many dentists, some from the Wrexham area, who have unilaterally withdrawn from NHS practice? What sort of professional sends a patient of 20 years' standing a letter to say that they can no longer treat him unless he signs up to a private dental plan? That is disreputable behaviour. It is time that such dentists recognised that they have a professional obligation to offer health care, not just to seek private profit.

Rosie Winterton: Dentists are independent contractors and, as such, they have the absolute right to withdraw their services if they wish to do so. The problem has been not necessarily the amount that dentists are paid but the way in which they are paid, leading to the treadmill effect of the current system. We are changing that round so that the money that is held centrally will be devolved to local level. The system of payment will change, and we believe that that will encourage more dentists to stay in the NHS and encourage more to join it in the first place.

Patsy Calton: Now that more than half the population are not registered with an NHS dentist, it is clear that access is not the whole story. What will the Government do to ensure that more people are registered with an NHS dentist?

Rosie Winterton: Only some 5 per cent. of dentists offer only private care. Some 60 per cent. of dentists provide some 90 per cent. of NHS care. However, the hon. Lady is right to point to a problem. We need to improve access and encourage registration. The measures that I have outlined—including devolving money held centrally to local level, allowing local commissioning and addressing the issue of the dental work force—will change the situation round. It will be a radical overhaul of the present system.

Stephen McCabe: Cosmetic teeth whitening is, I understand, a simple but costly procedure much beloved of some Opposition Front-Bench Members. Is cosmetic teeth whitening available on the NHS and, if not, how much would it cost the NHS, and what would be the impact on availability, if it were to be provided under the patients passport that the Opposition love?

Rosie Winterton: If teeth whitening were for purely cosmetic reasons it would not be available under the NHS, which is purely for clinical procedures, unless there had been a recommendation that it was necessary for clinical purposes. I agree with my hon. Friend about the policies of the Opposition; not only will the patients passport undermine the NHS—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Dr. Murrison.

Andrew Murrison: Deteriorating dental health in the UK is but the latest in a string of public health disappointments, including tuberculosis, obesity and sexual health, that have become more acute since the creation of the post of a public health Minister. Successive postholders have done little more than tweak management wiring diagrams, from the creation of directorates of infection control to the transfer of responsibility for primary dental care. Does the Minister agree in all candour that in public health terms the Government's impact on preventive oral health has been marginal at best? What comfort can she give the British Dental Association, which has highlighted its concerns to her on repeated occasions?

Rosie Winterton: In fact, we are working extremely closely with the BDA. That is exactly why we have come up with our plans. The BDA told us that it did not like the present system of payment, which was introduced by the previous Administration—who, by the way, at the same time cut dental fees by 7 per cent. while we have increased them by 26 per cent. We have worked with the BDA so that the money currently being spent centrally will be devolved to local level. That is what the BDA told us it wants and that is what we are delivering.

Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend will know that I have been haranguing Ministers for some time about the appalling problems of access to dentistry in Grimsby and Cleethorpes. For example, a vulnerable adult on incapacity benefit, who cannot obtain NHS treatment, was quoted £500 for fillings, while a pensioner who is in severe pain following an accident and needs urgent treatment can get no treatment, not even private treatment, until the new year. I know that initial discussions on improving access in my area have taken place, so will my hon. Friend tell me what progress is being made to ensure that my constituents have access to good dental treatment?

Rosie Winterton: I am well aware of the problems that my hon. Friend has highlighted. She has been as assiduous as ever in bringing them to our attention and I hope that I can offer her some reassurance. The dental support team has made three visits to her area to meet the local primary care trust. As a result, grants have been allocated for about 3,000 extra patients to be registered on NHS dentists' lists, and £50,000 has been allocated for a new service for non-NHS registered patients who need urgent treatment. My Department has also allocated £95,000 to employ full-time salaried dentists in the area. Furthermore, the PCT is working with Sheffield university on a scheme to locate newly qualified dentists in the area. I hope that gives my hon. Friend some reassurance that progress is being made.

Andrew Turner: If he will make a statement on the number of dentists in NHS practice.

Rosie Winterton: On 30 September 2003, there were 18,500 dentists in England—up from 16,728 in 1997. We have also undertaken a dental work force review, which we will publish shortly.

Andrew Turner: I thank the Minister for that answer. I am sure that she is aware, because she gave me the information, that in 1999 41 per cent. of adults in my constituency were registered with an NHS dentist. That figure has now slumped to 30.6 per cent. I have raised this matter with her predecessor. My PCT chief executive tells me that the Department of Health counts the Isle of Wight as
	"amongst the twelve most challenged populations"—
	[Interruption]—with regard to dentistry, that is—and is very supportive. We have had three meetings with the Department of Health, and another meeting will take place in late January, but is the Minister aware that it is no good offering meetings to managers when constituents want treatment?

Rosie Winterton: I can quite understand why the hon. Gentleman's constituents feel rather challenged. I reassure him that the NHS dentistry support team has, as he suggests, visited his constituency and met the local PCT and the local strategic health authority. It is important that the priorities are agreed at that level because that is how we can improve the system. Of course I understand the point about the hon. Gentleman's constituents. We are very aware of the difficulties that they face, but we have to sort those difficulties out strategically. Not only have those meetings taken place, but a local action plan has been drawn up to ensure that the situation is improved. A recruitment package has been produced. That has been attempted before in the hon. Gentleman's constituency to try to recruit dentists to the area. It was not successful, but that is being looked at again, and emphasis will be put on the fact that the access should not be required off the island and that priority should be given to children. I hope that that will improve the situation.

Ann Cryer: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents cannot register with an NHS dentist? There are many good NHS dentists in Keighley, but unfortunately, there are none in Skipton, so people from Skipton flood the Keighley area to use our dentists. What help can my hon. Friend offer to my constituency?

Rosie Winterton: Again, I can assure my hon. Friend that, through the NHS support team, we are trying to ensure that particularly challenged areas receive extra help. I will certainly ask the support team to consider the points that she makes and to find out whether we can do anything further to assist her area.

Hywel Williams: I am the victim of an assault—an assault by treacle toffee offered to me by a seven-year-old at a school Christmas fair. I could find no dentist either in London or in my constituency, and I eventually had to pay £400 for emergency treatment. Given that many hon. Members will shortly risk their dental integrity at school fairs throughout the country, can the Minister assure us that emergency dental treatment on the NHS is available in all parts of the United Kingdom?

Rosie Winterton: I can perhaps refer the hon. Gentleman to NHS Direct, which will be able to advise him on the nearest centre where he can get emergency care. That is what we pledged to do: to ensure that anyone who telephones NHS Direct can get advice on where the nearest source of emergency care is—either through a dental access centre, or through an NHS dentist who provides emergency treatment.

Lawrie Quinn: My hon. Friend has done much work with the British Dental Association, which she mentioned in an earlier answer, but crucial to maintaining the number of dentists is continued professional post-graduate training. A very good scheme has been developed on the Yorkshire coast in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity in the new year to come and see that work, which I very much congratulate her and her officials on helping to get started?

Rosie Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. He is absolutely right. That is why we have undertaken the dental work force review to consider training, recruitment and how we can ensure that more dentists stay in the NHS when they have trained. I would be more than happy to visit my hon. Friend's constituency. The NHS support team has already visited the area to consider ways in which it can improve access for his constituents, following representations that he has made, but looking at some of the schemes that he has outlined would be extremely helpful.

Epilepsy Nurses

George Osborne: If he will make a statement on the provision of specialist children's epilepsy nurses.

Stephen Ladyman: We do not collect this information centrally, but we understand that there are around 100 epilepsy specialist nurses supporting the treatment and management of children and adults with epilepsy. In February 2003, we published the Department of Health's epilepsy action plan, and primary care trusts are able to develop more epilepsy specialist nursing posts to support the delivery of local epilepsy services.

George Osborne: A consultant paediatrician in my local hospital, Dr. Owens, has vividly described to me the enormous benefit that specialist epilepsy nurses can bring to families with epileptic children. Yet in my area, as in many others, those specialist services do not exist. Before putting all the responsibility on primary care trusts, would the Minister listen to what Dr. Owens has to tell us—indeed, I forwarded this letter to him a month ago—
	"Whilst the present Government has undoubtedly increased funding for the NHS, moneys are centrally controlled and streamed into specific areas. There is not much funding reaching children's services in district general hospitals."
	What more can the Minister do to bring benefits to families with epileptic children in my area?

Stephen Ladyman: First, there is less ring-fencing of money now than ever before. Eight-five per cent. of the money is passed on to primary care trusts, which can make decisions about how they want to deliver epilepsy services in the best interests of local people. It is ridiculous to suggest that specialist nurses—important though they are—represent the totality of the delivery of services for children with epilepsy. I would refer the hon. Gentleman's constituent to the complete and comprehensive improvement in the priority that this Government have given to epilepsy compared with our predecessors. We have the epilepsy action plan, the national service frameworks for children and long-term conditions that are being produced next year, and two sets of NICE guidelines being produced that are also of direct relevance to epilepsy.

Tim Loughton: The lack of children's epilepsy nurses is another example of the chronic shortage of specialist children's nurses highlighted in the study by the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and has been identified as a major factor in avoidable death. It underlines how children's health does not fit into this Government's target priorities. Does the Minister acknowledge the figures from the royal colleges, which point to the fact that another 2,700 children's nurses are needed just to meet demand? Can he now tell the House the number of pre-registration children's nursing training places being made available to overcome that deficiency? Will that serious problem be addressed in the children's national service framework, when we eventually get it?

Stephen Ladyman: First, there are now 48,000 more nurses in the national health service as a result of the investment made by this Government. How many would there be if we were cutting expenditure on the national health service by 20 per cent? Out of those 48,000 will come a substantial number of specialist children's nurses, including those for epilepsy. If the hon. Gentleman were genuinely reflecting the views of people working in children's health, he would be saying that this Government are dramatically improving prospects for children's health in this country, and that the national service framework is going to be one of the biggest steps forward in children's health in the history of the national health service.

GP Premises (East London)

Oona King: What measures he is taking to improve general practitioner premises in east London.

John Reid: We have begun to transform the face of primary care in east London. In my hon. Friend's constituency, the local primary care trust is investing more than £1 million in opening, renewing and refurbishing general practice premises. By early next year, Tower Hamlets PCT will have opened three additional practices, bringing much-needed general practitioners to east London.

Oona King: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Clearly, I warmly welcome the new premises that are being replaced, refurbished and reopened. In places such as east London, however, many older GPs, often operating from single practices that were inadequately housed, are retiring, and we are having something of a problem in ensuring that the new premises are duly improved and in the right places. Can the Secretary of State write to me outlining what measures his Department might take to work more closely with developers, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and others involved in regeneration initiatives to ensure that we have improved premises in the areas that need them?

John Reid: I will certainly undertake to write to my hon. Friend. In the meantime, I can say that she is absolutely right that we need to unleash the capacity that exists in the public or private sector to bring together all capabilities to address health care, whether that relates to buildings or other matters. She may know that we have developed a groundbreaking initiative for the NHS that is referred to as LIFT—the local improvement finance trust—to develop and encourage a new market for investment in primary care facilities. East London contains two LIFT projects, in Barking and Havering, which are bringing investment worth more than £47 million to London. Included in the east London scheme is a £4.9 million one-stop primary care centre in Church road, a £2.6 million primary care centre in Barking road and a £12 million one-stop primary care centre in Vicarage lane. All of that is vitally important, because if we do not put capacity into the NHS, we cannot give people the quality or choice that they should have.

Richard Bacon: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no wish to ignore the hon. Gentleman, but South Norfolk does not exactly come under east London.

Nurse Practitioners

Helen Jones: What progress has been made in developing the role of nurse practitioners; and if he will make a statement.

John Hutton: Over the past five years, the number of nurses working in primary care has increased by 18 per cent., and many of them work as nurse practitioners. Their roles have expanded to include prescribing and ordering some diagnostic tests for patients. The Department also remains committed to developing further the role of nurses in secondary care through the establishment of new modern matrons, nurse consultant posts and greater clinical responsibility for nurses.

Helen Jones: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but will he tell the House how he proposes to extend further the role of nurse practitioners in primary care? Many patients find that extremely useful—it is very popular in my area. How might the arrangements for the new GP contract impinge on that process?

John Hutton: I agree with my hon. Friend that nurses have a hugely important role to play in delivering an improved range of services in the community and primary care. I know that she assiduously follows such events, so she knows that the new general medical services contract that we successfully concluded with the British Medical Association will allow nurse-led practices to be developed in GMS for the first time. That will allow nurses to continue expanding and developing their role to improve services for patients in all parts of the country, including those of my hon. Friend.

David Tredinnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that nurses who have trained in therapies such as acupuncture, herbal remedies and perhaps even homeopathy will not be discriminated against in hospitals? Will they be able to use such therapies as they should—to assist patients and reduce the pressure on doctors and other nurses?

John Hutton: I certainly would not want to dismiss that. I have recently become something of a convert to some of those treatments. I had some reflexology recently and it was very nice indeed—I do not really want to say any more about that.
	The hon. Gentleman raises a fair and important point. He might not have had a chance to read the command paper that has been published today on how we can make the NHS more responsive and equitable with choice. It deals with complementary medicines and I hope that he will find that our statements today take the issue further forward in a way he could support.

Syd Rapson: May I first, through you, Mr. Speaker, thank the Secretary of State for his morale-boosting visit to Portsmouth last week, which was welcomed by everyone? In welcoming the development of nurse practitioners, may I ask the Minister whether that will give nurses the authority to cope with the MRSA problem that affects most hospitals?

John Hutton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State raises the morale of everyone in the NHS wherever he goes. My hon. Friend makes an important point about MRSA. The chief medical officer published a set of proposals last week that will help us to get on top of what we accept is a serious problem for the NHS. I agree that a key way in which we could make a significant improvement would be to develop the authority and role of nurses, which is precisely what modern matrons are doing in our hospitals today.

Stroke Services

Sandra Gidley: What the latest average waiting time is for a scan for patients with a suspected stroke.

Melanie Johnson: The information is not collected centrally. The target in this area is to achieve a CT or MRI scan in less than 48 hours. The 2001–02 national sentinel stroke audit reported that more patients than ever had had brain imaging, with at least 83 per cent. meeting that target.

Sandra Gidley: I hope that the Minister is not complacent about those figures because they mean that almost 20,000 people did not receive the required service in the required time. As such targets are part of the national service framework, does the fact that the information is not monitored centrally mean that NSFs are not worth the paper that they are written on?

Melanie Johnson: I do not think anyone in the Chamber or outside it will give any credence to that line. One target in the priorities and planning framework for 2003 to 2006 requires the establishment of specialist stroke services by April 2004, which are important in all hospitals that care for people who have a stroke. At least three quarters of hospitals already have specialist stroke services. The local delivery plans show that 94 per cent. aim to meet that target soon.

Richard Bacon: Will the latest average waiting time for a scan for patients with a suspected stroke be recorded in the national programme for IT in the health service, the contracts for which have been signed with unseemly haste despite the concerns of many in the industry? Can the Minister confirm whether a significant financial bonus has been given to the director general of IT, Mr. Richard Granger, for signing the contracts by a specific date?

Melanie Johnson: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's line of questioning. The third national sentinel stroke audit said:
	"there has been a revolution over the last few years."
	Those are not the words of the Department of Health, but come from the audit on patients with stroke. Of course we want to improve services to patients through the IT investment that we are making. I should have thought that hon. Members would universally welcome that.

Harry Barnes: Is the Minister aware that if someone has a stroke at the back of the head, it affects their balance, and that the test for that reveals whether someone has multiple sclerosis or has had a stroke? It is assumed that if a person is young, he has MS, and that if he is old, he has had a stroke. That is not exactly scientific because there are other possibilities. The proper way to diagnose people in those circumstances is to do a scan. It is important that that service is developed throughout the country.

Melanie Johnson: I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend for improving my medical education further. That is a useful point. The number of scanners has grown considerably since 1997. Altogether, the number of MRI scanners is expected to increase from 110 in 1997 to 276 by 2004. That is an increase of 151 per cent.

Andrew Lansley: The Minister referred to the national sentinel stroke audit, which said that only 27 per cent. of stroke patients spent the majority of their time in a specialist stroke unit. Does she agree that what matters most is the character of the specialist unit and whether patients spend time in it? What milestones or targets does the priorities and planning framework suggest for the proportion of patients who receive specialist care?

Melanie Johnson: By next April, 95 per cent. of all hospitals will have specialist stroke services. I agree that it is important that services are appropriately tailored to meet patients' needs. We are investing in the NHS to make such provision available, which we base on best practice, spread across the service by the Modernisation Agency. That allows patients to receive the standard of care that Labour Members think they deserve, backed by the investment that will deliver that standard of care.

Care Homes

Marion Roe: If he will make a statement on the change in the number of care home beds since 1997.

Stephen Ladyman: In 1997, there were 534,410 care home beds. In 2001, there were 528,000 beds in England. Data on care home capacity have not been collected by the Department of Health since 2001, but data collected independently by Laing and Buisson indicate that at July 2003 there were about 10,000 vacant care home places in the United Kingdom.

Marion Roe: Does the Minister acknowledge the figures published by Laing and Buisson last summer, which show that capacity in the care home sector—throughout all sectors—was 74,000 places lower than the peak in 1996? Does he really believe that this catastrophic loss of care home places is of the care sector's own choosing? When will he admit that care homes are closing because the Labour Government's illthought-through policies are forcing them to do so?

Stephen Ladyman: Care home places are being lost because older people do not want to go in them. We are giving people choice. There are 81,500 people receiving intensive care home packages so that they can stay at home. If the hon. Lady studies the performance indicators published only a couple of weeks ago, she will find that we have increased the number of people being supported at home by 30 per cent. since 1998. We are giving older people choice. The Conservative party wants to force them all, against their will, into care homes.

George Stevenson: Does my hon. Friend agree that a continuing concern about the provision of care for the elderly—particularly in respect of elderly care beds—is the artificial divisions that exist between the national health service and social services? Is it not time that the Government redoubled their efforts to encourage these authorities to merge and to establish care trusts for the elderly so that the necessary focus can be placed on the comprehensive requirements of the elderly when they are in need of care?

Stephen Ladyman: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Care trusts to support older people are a valuable tool. I encourage any local council and primary care trust looking for opportunities to improve care for older people to think carefully about building up the partnerships, co-operation and trust that are necessary to improve working, and then to cement those partnerships by forming a care trust that can deliver the comprehensive service that I know my hon. Friend supports.

Simon Burns: The care home sector will be deeply distressed that the Minister seems to be in total denial of the crisis in care. At a time when care homes are under severe financial pressures, will he tell us what justification there is for the fact that an enhanced check fee that was £12 per check in April 2002 will, by next April, have risen 175 per cent. to £33, placing more financial burdens on care homes? It will be seen by many as another stealth tax.

Stephen Ladyman: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman and his constant attacks on Criminal Records Bureau checks. If we ever needed any confirmation of why such checks are necessary, we saw it recently in the "Panorama" programme. That is what the Government have implemented—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Minister answer in his own way.

Stephen Ladyman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	The cost has increased because we consulted the industry and made it clear to it that we would expect full cost recovery over a period. We are moving to that. The industry can pass on the costs to those to whom it sells its services. The Government fully fund that through local councils.

Anne Campbell: May I encourage my hon. Friend to concentrate on the care that most of my elderly constituents prefer to receive—domiciliary care? Will he ensure that social services departments are capable of providing the high-quality care that people need when they are living at home?

Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend is right. I am glad that at least on the Government Benches we are consistent in our support for the choice that 80 per cent. of elderly people tell us that they want to make, which is to stay in their own homes. We must work much harder to ensure that social services are aware that people want to make choices and that they have all the facilities that they need at their disposal to make such choices a reality for everybody.

Archie Norman: Does the Minister realise that his claim that care homes are closing because elderly people do not want to go into them will sound risible to people in west Kent, where all the care homes are full and elderly people have to be shipped off to the south coast because homes are still closing? Does he acknowledge that one reason why they are closing is the pattern of condescending regulation imposed on care home managers, such as the requirement for experienced care home owners and managers to do a four-year national vocational qualification in management, despite the fact that they have been running perfectly good homes for many years?

Stephen Ladyman: It is our intention to drive up standards in care homes. The hon. Gentleman represents Tunbridge Wells, so may I suggest that he read the last edition of Caring Times, in which he will see a report from a property consultant saying that the care home market has turned around, and that a care home in his constituency was recently sold for far more than the asking price because serious investors are coming back into what they regard as a healthy marketplace. I am sure that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), will confirm that fact, because he has a declared interest in the care home industry and is presumably making good money out of it.

Hepatitis C

Martin Smyth: How many people infected with hepatitis C through NHS treatment will benefit from the ex gratia payment scheme.

Melanie Johnson: Work on the detail of the scheme is ongoing, so the exact number of potential beneficiaries is not yet known.

Martin Smyth: I am sorry that the number is not known, but does the Minister agree that, despite the goal of patient choice, those people had no choice? They were infected as a result of a mistake by the health service, and should all be compensated. Some of them have died, but their relatives have not been compensated either.

Melanie Johnson: Because we recognised that there were compassionate grounds, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that, in principle, he would introduce ex gratia payments on compassionate grounds for patients infected with hepatitis C following treatment with contaminated blood and blood products. A scheme is currently under construction.

Brian Iddon: I hope that my hon. Friend noticed that the annual "Carpet of Lilies" campaign was held last week by the Haemophilia Society and that, sadly, we presented 232 lilies to No. 10 Downing street last week. I hope that she will take into consideration the fact that the relatives of the 232 haemophiliacs who died as a result of contracting the hepatitis C virus deserve compensation. All HCV strains are rather miraculous, as they mutate rapidly and even disappear, so will she take into account the fact that although people contracted HCV years ago they may not be HCV-positive today? However, because of the trauma that they have suffered they still deserve compensation.

Melanie Johnson: First, may I extend our sympathies to everyone who has suffered as a result of contracting hepatitis C, and say that we were aware of the "Carpet of Lilies" day last week? Secondly, we are well aware of a number of concerns expressed by my hon. Friend about the proposed scheme. We are in discussion with the chairman and chief executive of the Haemophilia Society, who have also met my officials in the Department. We are considering those concerns, but the fact is that we have to decide how to use the money to the best effect. As with all things, it is not an unlimited pot.

Local Treatment Centres

Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on plans for provision of local treatment centres.

John Reid: The national health service is developing a large number of new treatment centres, which will enable more patients to receive more operations more quickly. The programme will also enable the NHS to offer patients a greater choice about where they are treated.

Mike Gapes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for many years we have had a severe shortage of hospital beds in north-east London? In my own trust—Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust—we have an average 98 per cent. bed occupancy. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the decision by my local trust and the Anglo-Canadian Group to establish from March 2005 a treatment centre on the King George hospital site in my constituency, which will treat 12,000 elective surgical patients every year? Will he join me in acknowledging that that is another example of success and investment by the Labour Government?

John Reid: Yes—[Laughter.] Indeed I will, but the proof of the pudding is not whether the Government give accolades or whether those on the Opposition Front Bench laugh and sneer; it is whether the people who are receiving treatment from the national health service in my hon. Friend's constituency get a better quality service quickly, in greater numbers than before. As he points out, there is no doubt that that independent sector treatment centre, which will treat an average of 11,800 patients a year over five years, will be a major boon and another indication of the results of the investment that we are putting in. Incidentally, 4,300 of those treatments will be additional operations. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and our investment will not only give a better quality of service to patients, but mean that the vast majority of people, rather than just the rich or the privileged, can get a better choice and better quality of health care.

David Cameron: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that the local aspect of treatment centres is considered? Will he give me an assurance that, if a primary care trust votes against a diagnostic and treatment centre because it believes that it is not in the interests of local people, it will not be subject to improper pressure from the Department of Health or the strategic health authority to change its mind? Can he assure me that that has not happened, and will not happen, in the case of the South West Oxfordshire primary care trust?

John Reid: If the hon. Gentleman were a cautious person, he would wait and see the outcome of the discussions in the area that he mentioned. I will be prepared to accept them, and all reasonable people will accept that local primary care trusts have to make their own decisions, but the public will want to be sure that those decisions are based on the interests of local patients and are not unduly influenced by the interests of local providers and producers, especially consultants. It is essential that in all these decisions the interests of patients are put first. That is why we are achieving such success in improving the national health service.
	Despite the criticisms that we receive from week to week, it is noticeable that the widespread use of the NHS has now extended to the royal family. I am delighted that in recent days that has been the case. There are people of some stature currently using the NHS, not least Ozzy Osbourne, and I am sure that all of us wish him a speedy recovery.

Passive Smoking

David Taylor: What contribution to the policies of his Department on controls over secondary smoking in public places has been made by the chief medical officer for England.

Melanie Johnson: The chief medical officer's annual report that was published in July, which highlighted second-hand smoke, is an extremely valuable contribution to the debate on this important public health topic.

David Taylor: As chair of the all-party group on smoking and health, I welcome the present taxpayer-funded campaign highlighting the dangers of second-hand smoke, but regret the reluctance of the Government to abandon the failed voluntary approach on these matters. Should we not follow the imaginative legislative example of New Zealand and others listed in my early-day motion 225? Is it not the Secretary of State who is the outrider on these issues, not the chief medical officer?

Melanie Johnson: The chief medical officer is certainly no outrider, nor is the Secretary of State. We have done 98 per cent. of what the chief medical officer advised with regard to smoking. We have introduced a world-leading smoking cessation service, an education campaign with a specific hard-hitting campaign on second-hand smoke, a ban on tobacco advertising and new health warnings on tobacco. Let us be clear. The chief medical officer's role is to provide medical advice, and we as politicians have the responsibility for balancing that advice with protecting the freedom of individuals.

Eric Forth: What estimate has the Minister made of the loss of revenue for each percentage drop in smoking in the population at large? What proposals does she or the Chancellor have for making good the revenues lost every time people stop smoking?

Melanie Johnson: That is a matter for the Chancellor, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. Let us not forget that taxation has been crucial in encouraging many people to kick the habit and better still, never to start. For every 10 per cent. increase in price, there is a 3 per cent. fall in smoking. Also, we have funded over 1,000 extra Customs officers and a national network of X-ray scanners to combat smuggling, so we have made considerable progress. The high price of cigarettes in the UK is a contributory factor to that success.

NHS Funding (Milton Keynes)

Phyllis Starkey: If he will make a statement on NHS funding for Milton Keynes.

John Hutton: The resources available to Milton Keynes primary care trust will increase over the next three years by £47.8 million or 31.3 per cent. It is for primary care trusts in partnership with strategic health authorities and others to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities.

Phyllis Starkey: My constituents welcome the generous extra funding that Milton Keynes has already received, but the Minister will be aware that it is one of the Government's housing growth areas and we are concerned about future health spending. In particular, given that health funding is set for a three-year period based on the population figures in year 1, we are concerned about how future health funding will take account of the very fast population growth in our area. Will the Minister consider a special mechanism for Milton Keynes to meet those growth problems, and will he ask the Secretary of State for Health if he would be prepared to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) to discuss the issue in more detail?

John Hutton: Yes, of course we are happy to discuss with my hon. Friends any aspect of the funding formula for primary care trusts. I add two brief comments to what my hon. Friend said. It has benefited primary care trusts to have three-year allocations because that has allowed them to plan more effectively how to use those resources to the maximum effect. Making three-year allocations has been a positive rather than a negative step for the NHS, but any change to the funding formula has to apply equally and fairly to every primary care trust. That is at the forefront of our minds, but we are happy to discuss in further detail any of my hon. Friend's concerns.

Hospital-acquired Infections

Peter Lilley: If he will make a statement on the incidence of infections acquired in NHS hospitals.

Rosie Winterton: We believe that around 9 per cent. of hospital patients acquire an infection while in NHS hospitals. The chief medical officer has published his report on how to prevent and reduce hospital infections, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has accepted the recommendations in full. We are confident that that will improve patient care in this area.

Peter Lilley: Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State's refusal to make a proper statement in this House about his initiatives to tackle a problem that kills between 5,000 and 20,000 of our constituents every year is a disgrace? Is it because the initiative that he announced on the "Today" programme on Friday when the House was not sitting was treated with derision by doctors in my constituency who say that appointing another layer of management to an already over-managed health service is not the way to bring back the Florence Nightingale culture that we need?

Rosie Winterton: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I am surprised that he should make such a statement. He knows very well that if this were new policy it would have been brought to the House. It is not new policy; it is a review of the policy that is being carried out, and my right hon. Friend has written to him to that effect. The right hon. Gentleman might like to think what effect his policy of compulsory competitive tendering had on hospital infection rates—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not for the Minister to worry about such matters.

Eric Illsley: In contrast to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), I welcome the announcement that was made last Friday, particularly in view of the problems being experienced at Barnsley district general hospital. The cleaning contractor, Initial Cleaning Services, has this year had a turnover of 200 staff and has about 40 vacancies on the cleaning contract. It was recently forced to admit that it had lied to the hospital management about the methods that it was using to clean the hospital. Do we not need such an initiative to keep in check companies that abuse their contracts within the NHS?

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the weaknesses of the policies introduced by the previous Administration. I am also glad that he has welcomed this initiative, which is not about introducing new bureaucracy but about ensuring that a health care professional has the authority to put together all the various issues, including hand washing, the environment and the design of buildings, to ensure that such infections are brought under control.

Maternity Services

James Gray: What his policy is on the proximity of maternity services to patients.

John Reid: It is up to local health organisations, working with their communities and other local partners, to provide high-quality maternity services that are as safe and as accessible as possible to women and their families.

James Gray: The Secretary of State has noticeably failed to answer the question, which was about how close maternity services should be to patients. He will know that, thanks to chronic underfunding by this Government, the Kennet and North Wiltshire primary care trust is consulting on the closure of maternity services both in Malmesbury and the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that it is important that at least antenatal and post-natal services should be situated as close as possible to the women concerned? Will he intervene with the Kennet and North Wiltshire PCT to try to ensure that it provides precisely what he has previously said he would like to see—services at close proximity to the women concerned?

John Reid: Of course, it is absolute nonsense to speak about reduced input, investment or finance being provided when this Government have provided historically high levels of finance. We want to see maximum choice and access for women and maternity services, but it is not possible always to maintain every single unit. The hon. Gentleman talks about Malmesbury, which is a very small maternity unit. Fewer than two births a week occur there and the total cost is almost £7,000 a birth, which is many times the cost of other births, even in the same area. Of course, we want maximum access and choice, but the primary care trust in the hon. Gentleman's area has a responsibility to ask itself whether that money is best spent in that fashion in that area, thus depriving other services. I think that the trust is conducting the public consultation very responsibly, and I only wish the hon. Gentleman was acting as responsibly.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting

Tony Blair: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, which took place in Abuja, Nigeria, from 5 to 8 December. Copies of the communiqué and declaration have been placed in the Library of the House.
	Her Majesty the Queen attended the meeting in her role as Head of the Commonwealth and also paid a state visit to Nigeria, where she was warmly welcomed by the Nigerian people. The outgoing Commonwealth Chairman-in-Office, Prime Minister John Howard of Australia, paid tribute on behalf of all Commonwealth members to the Queen's dedication and commitment to the Commonwealth. I know that the whole House will wish to join me in echoing that tribute.
	Nigeria itself returned to the Commonwealth only in 1999, after a turbulent period of military rule. The Queen's visit and the holding of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting there underline the progress that has since been made in rebuilding a democratic and prosperous Nigeria. Britain is committed to supporting the reform programme led by President Obasanjo, on whose chairmanship of the summit I give sincere congratulations. In a difficult situation, he managed matters with great skill.
	Commonwealth Heads of Government last met in Coolum, Australia, in March 2002. At Abuja, we reviewed developments since then. We agreed on the urgent need to relaunch the world trade talks, which stalled at Cancun in September, and underlined our collective commitment to a successful Doha development round. That commitment is significant. The Commonwealth represents one third of the world's population; developing and developed countries; large and small states; and agricultural, service and manufacturing-based economies. All have different perspectives and interests. The fact that all of us agreed on the need to relaunch the Doha development round and on the need for all parties to show flexibility in the search for agreement shows that a global deal is indeed possible. Everyone will gain if the talks succeed, but the biggest winners will be the world's poor; and if the talks fail, the world's poor will be the biggest losers too.
	We discussed other development issues. Heads of Government agreed on the need to accelerate progress to meet the millennium development goals, which aim to halve the proportion of people living in poverty by 2015. I reaffirmed the UK's own strong commitment to that goal. Heads of Government also underlined their concern at the spread of HIV/AIDS, which now threatens not only Africa but, increasingly, Asia and other parts of the world. Three million people will die of the HIV/AIDS virus this year alone, and two in three of the people infected live in Commonwealth countries. It poses one of the gravest threats not just to health but to sustainable development.
	We agreed on the need to redouble our efforts to fight this threat. Britain is playing its full part, including through our own call for action on world AIDS day, and we are now the second largest bilateral donor in the world as regards HIV/AIDS, after the United States of America. Our bilateral aid amounted to more than £270 million in the last financial year alone—a real demonstration of commitment on behalf of the people and Government of Great Britain.
	The last Commonwealth summit was postponed following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. Since then, the terrorists have continued their indiscriminate campaign. We agreed in Abuja that terrorism threatens everyone, regardless of nationality or faith, and that all Commonwealth members should stand together to meet and defeat this challenge.
	The meeting considered the situation in the two countries that have been suspended from the Councils of the Commonwealth: Pakistan and Zimbabwe. On Pakistan, Heads of Government welcomed the progress made back towards democratic governance. They expressed the hope that the Pakistan Parliament would soon pass the necessary measures to allow the lifting of Pakistan's suspension.
	Where Pakistan has moved forward since Commonwealth leaders last met, Zimbabwe has gone backwards. The country was suspended from the Commonwealth in March 2002, shortly after elections that the Commonwealth's own observers concluded were neither free nor fair. Since then, there has been yet more violence and intimidation against the opposition MDC party—the Movement for Democratic Change—against lawyers and human rights activists, and, indeed, against anyone speaking up against President Mugabe's oppressive policies. Zimbabwe's only independent daily newspaper, The Daily News, has been closed down, despite court orders in its favour.
	Meanwhile, ZANU-PF's ruinous economic policies are driving the country further and further into chaos. Inflation is now over 500 per cent., and Zimbabwe's GDP has halved in five years. The International Monetary Fund decided last week to begin procedures to expel Zimbabwe, because of its appalling economic policies. Half the population now needs food aid—but it is worth saying that Britain remains the leading cash donor for the UN's humanitarian programmes in Zimbabwe. In the last two years, we have given $100 million in food aid to the people of Zimbabwe.
	In those circumstances, I and others argued that it was inconceivable that Zimbabwe could be readmitted to the Councils of the Commonwealth, and that, on the contrary, it should remain suspended until we saw concrete evidence of a return to democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law—the very principles on which the Commonwealth is founded.
	I am glad to say that this approach was agreed. It was decided that Zimbabwe should indeed remain suspended from the Councils of the Commonwealth, that President Obasanjo as Chairman-in-Office, together with the Commonwealth Secretary-General, will seek to facilitate progress inside Zimbabwe, and that if sufficient progress is made on the issues of concern he will report, via a representative group of six Commonwealth members, to Heads of Government. Heads will revisit the issue in the light of that report, and take any decision on the lifting of the suspension by consensus.
	This is the outcome that we wanted. It is also the outcome that Mr. Mugabe worked assiduously to avoid. Incidentally, it gives the lie to one of his most outrageous claims—that the Commonwealth's approach to Zimbabwe is a white conspiracy led by the UK against black Africa. The fact is that every single Commonwealth country signed up to the Abuja statement on Zimbabwe, including the other 19 African members of the Commonwealth, despite the strongly held doubts of some of those countries—nor did any African member of the Commonwealth take up Mr. Mugabe's invitation to boycott the summit meeting. The outcome in Abuja was hard-fought, but in the end it was a victory for Commonwealth values.
	Mr. Mugabe's reaction—to withdraw Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth—shows clearly that he does not accept Commonwealth principles. It was a decision taken without regard for the wishes or well-being of the Zimbabwean people. ZANU-PF's isolation will be increased, but the strong bonds that exist between the Zimbabwean people and the rest of the Commonwealth remain. There will always be a place for a democratic Zimbabwe in the Commonwealth.
	The summit also re-elected the present Commonwealth Secretary-General, Don McKinnon, for a second and final four-year term. We welcome that outcome. The Secretary-General has done an excellent job in his first term. He will continue to have our full support in his second.
	Finally, I participated in the Commonwealth sports meeting. We looked back to Manchester's successful hosting of the last Commonwealth games in 2002, and forward to the next in Melbourne in 2006. I highlighted the UK's future sporting priorities.
	At this Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, a group of more than 50 countries came together to discuss the issues that matter most to their peoples—prosperity, security, sustainable development, and the fight against terror—and agreed a common approach on all, in the interests of all. The group discussed more controversial issues such as Zimbabwe, on which it is no secret that there were, and remain, a range of differing views among member states. But here too, through serious discussion and debate, the Commonwealth was able to reach a consensus on the way forward.
	I commend the outcome to the House.

Michael Howard: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I take this opportunity to welcome back to the House my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who has just returned from five months' military service in Iraq. We are delighted to have him back safe and sound.
	I join the Prime Minister in the tribute that he paid to Her Majesty's dedication and commitment to the Commonwealth. The Harare declaration of 1991 reaffirmed the Commonwealth's values—the protection of human rights; equal opportunities for all regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief; equality for women; democracy; the rule of law; and the independence of the judiciary. Those values are of supreme importance.
	Clearly, however, one country has flagrantly and blatantly breached those values. I congratulate the Prime Minister on the strong stand that he took in Abuja to resist the efforts of those who wanted to lift Zimbabwe's suspension from the Councils of the Commonwealth.
	Of course, the Government did not always take that view. After the rigged parliamentary elections in 2000, the Opposition called for action, but as late as May 2001 the then Foreign Secretary was still setting out the arguments against the suspension of Zimbabwe. It is sadly true that, in the past, the Government have been behind the game on the issue; they have not led, but have followed. The people of Zimbabwe are the worse for it.
	In view of President Mugabe's decision to leave the Commonwealth, will the Prime Minister say what is the current status of the committee established by the Heads of Government to examine the way forward in relation to Zimbabwe? Does President Obasanjo's mandate to encourage and facilitate continued progress and Zimbabwe's return to the Commonwealth still stand? Is it still President Obasanjo's intention to visit Zimbabwe at the earliest opportunity? There appears to be a good deal of confusion about the committee's future status. Will the Prime Minister clarify the situation for the House?
	Then there is the position of the European Union. Does the Prime Minister understand that EU sanctions are still not tough enough? Why do they not include the business men who still bankroll Mugabe? Will the Prime Minister press for their inclusion at the EU summit in Rome this weekend?
	When will a resolution be tabled in the United Nations? The Commonwealth's leverage is diminished following Mugabe's decision to withdraw: is there not now a powerful case for the UN to become more actively involved?
	The summit raised many other fundamental issues. Will the Prime Minister clarify the position on Pakistan? Is there a consensus on the time frame for Pakistan's return to the Councils of the Commonwealth?
	Undoubtedly, HIV/AIDS is one of the greatest challenges facing the Commonwealth, and the world as a whole. The Commonwealth recognises the need for greater international co-operation in combating the disease. What, in practical terms, is that likely to mean for the work of its member states?
	At a time when terrorism is of such concern across the world, what are likely to be the practical results of the Commonwealth's renewed commitment to action against terrorism?
	Corruption is a cancer in developed and developing countries alike. What is the proposed timetable for Commonwealth countries signing and ratifying the UN convention against corruption?
	In addition, I join the Prime Minister in emphasising the primary role of business, trade and economic development in the relief of poverty. The whole House will be pleased to see the commitment to trade liberalisation. As the fourth largest economy in the world, Britain should be using its position to bring about the lowering of EU tariffs, which is crucial to opening our markets to primary producers. When a cow in the EU gets more support than a starving child in Africa, surely we can all agree that something is fundamentally wrong.
	Cancun was a missed opportunity. What practical plans does the Commonwealth have to help to drive through the Doha development agenda? Agreement on the need to relaunch it is a welcome step and is all very well, but should not an attempt be made within the Commonwealth to seek agreement on some of the issues that remain outstanding, and thus send a powerful signal to the rest of the world and the other countries involved in the process?
	While recognising the assistance that is already provided to developing countries in trade negotiations, may I ask the Prime Minister also to consider my proposal for an advocacy fund, financed by developed countries, to help developing countries obtain access to high-quality economic and legal advice on trade issues?
	The Commonwealth is a microcosm of the world. It embraces north and south, Muslim and Christian, rich and poor. It has the potential to play a much more prominent role in tackling the key challenges facing the world today—terrorism, free trade, the promotion of democracy and the protection of human rights and the environment. I welcome the fact that the Commonwealth consultative group on the environment, which I inaugurated in 1992 with the Environment Minister of India, continues to meet. The work on sustainable development, the work of the Commonwealth ministerial action group and the co-operation between Commonwealth Education and Health Ministers, among others, also bear testimony to the Commonwealth's potential. Does the Prime Minister not agree that there is a good deal more scope for such co-operation between Commonwealth Governments working together to show the way forward to the rest of the world?

Tony Blair: I add my thanks to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) for his service in Iraq, which is greatly appreciated.
	I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) for his congratulations on the result that we achieved in relation to Zimbabwe. It is important to approach this issue with two things in mind. We are guided to a large extent—I think rightly—by what the MDC and other opposition groups in Zimbabwe say. We try therefore to keep whatever measures we are taking in line with the measures that they are asking us to take. They are on the ground and they know best what helps, and the situation in Zimbabwe is such that, in the end, it is from within that the main change will come.
	It is for that reason that on sanctions, for example, we have tried to proceed in a way that such groups support. They do not support general sanctions against the population; they support targeted sanctions, and that is what we have been trying to ensure are put into effect and that is what we managed to get the EU to agree to. We keep under review the number of people to whom we can extend the sanctions and it is certainly worth considering business people and others if we can identify measures that will be effective.
	We have put this issue before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on many occasions, but the problem with a Security Council resolution is that—again, to be blunt about it—the difference of view applies between most members of the Commonwealth and some of the states in the region. Unless the states in the region are prepared to say that they believe that a UN resolution would be advantageous, it is quite difficult to get one through the UN.
	We try in every way that we can, including through the statements that were forthcoming from Kofi Annan recently, to put the maximum pressure on Zimbabwe. In the end, there is only one thing that will work—the pressure that we can put on. We can do that by sending signals, and that is why it is important that the Commonwealth sends such a signal. However, we must do that by being honest with people about the fact that there is a limit to what can be done from the outside. It is very important that we give every support to democratic groups in Zimbabwe and, in addition, that we work even harder on persuading the other countries in the region that it is in their interests not to support Mugabe and the Zimbabwean regime, but to facilitate national reconciliation in the interests of changing the regime.
	In respect of Pakistan, the time frame is governed by its progress towards meeting the democratic criteria that have been set out. We hope that can happen as soon as possible. No specific time frame is set down; it is a time frame determined by the meeting of the criteria.
	In relation to HIV/AIDS, the practical effect will be seen in the programmes for which we use the money. The programmes must be dedicated to two things: first, achieving a sufficient capacity in the Governments of the countries with major HIV/AIDS problems so that they can deal with HIV/AIDS; and, secondly, putting the infrastructure in place in local communities where they can gain access to treatment and to preventive information. That is what we are doing.
	The other aspect, of course, is the work that we are doing with drug companies so that we reduce significantly the cost of drugs available to treat people who have HIV/AIDS, but it is a shocking fact that life expectancy in many of those African countries is dropping as a result of HIV/AIDS. That has a hugely important and adverse knock-on effect on development.
	In respect of terrorism, truthfully, the most that the Commonwealth is able to do is make a firm declaration of principles. It is for each state to take its own individual measures, but I was gratified to note that no one sought to temporise in any way at all over the threat terrorism poses.
	In respect of corruption, the most important thing is to take the work forward on the New Partnership for Africa's Development proposals that we have been working on for two or three years—that is, increasingly, to link aid and development assistance with proper governance. That is crucial, because all those countries that need large sums of aid will not be able either to get them or to use them properly without proper systems of governance being in place.
	Corruption is extremely corrosive. Once it grips a country, it is very difficult to weed out, but the best way to do that is by tying the aid and development assistance given through the NEPAD process to proper systems of government being put in place. That includes, incidentally, proper commercial and legal systems.
	In respect of trade liberalisation, it is extremely important that we dismantle the EU tariffs over time, as we suggested. That means common agricultural policy reform. I would point out two things to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The first is that we are better able to get that result if we are participating properly, strongly and positively in Europe. The second is that, of course, the only way that we will ever get CAP reform is through qualified majority voting.
	In respect of the World Trade Organisation, we will negotiate, obviously not through the Commonwealth, but through the various blocs, but, again, what is interesting is that there was a consensus that we need to make that Doha process work. We have looked at the ideas for an advocacy fund. We help countries with their capacity building for conducting those trade negotiations and we have found that most of them prefer to have the money in that way.
	Finally, it is possible to sneer at what the Commonwealth can achieve, but the Commonwealth achieves a significant amount. The fact that there is a forum in which very diverse countries come together and, even on difficult issues, find a consensus, is a great mark in its favour. From my experience of the Commonwealth meetings that I have attended, I have no doubt that although they can be difficult—indeed, at times tortuous—this is an alliance that Britain should be proud to be a member of and one that does enormous good in the world.

Charles Kennedy: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement on the summit and also join in the proper tributes that have been paid to Her Majesty the Queen on the remarkable number of decades during which she has presided over one of the most remarkable global organisations for doing good.
	Like the Government, we think that, obviously, it would be infinitely preferable to see a democratic, stable and sane Zimbabwe remaining part of the Commonwealth family of nations, but, given the circumstances, the obviously worsening conditions on the ground and the fact that there are no signs of the Zimbabwean regime seeking to improve their deplorable human rights record, the Commonwealth had no choice but to continue the suspension. That is a sad but inevitable fact.
	Over time, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches urged the Government to take a harder line with Zimbabwe and Mugabe at an earlier stage, but the sad fact of the matter is that Mugabe's crass, chaotic and, indeed, despotic administration of his regime and the ruinous effect that that is having on that country have led to this sad and inevitable outcome. However, I would encourage the Prime Minister, given what he said a moment ago, to take every opportunity to remind people that diplomatically on the international stage Britain very much wants to keep the United Nations resolution route open and to encourage others to see the wisdom of that approach.
	I want to refer specifically to one or two issues, the first of which is HIV/AIDS. The emphasis given in the communiqué is obviously welcome and I think the Prime Minister would agree—we have seen this in respect of people such as President Mbeki in days gone by—that the issue here is one of both action and political leadership attitudes. Did the Prime Minister come away from the summit more encouraged by the attitudes of those in leadership positions in some countries where the most has to be achieved to tackle this modern scourge?
	The Prime Minister rightly emphasised the need for practical programmes in that respect. Will he indicate whether our country or, indeed, the Commonwealth plans financially to support the global fund that is coming on stream and which works against the spread of the incidence of AIDS?
	On trade matters, the communiqué says, as the Prime Minister said in his statement, that "all of us agreed on the need to relaunch the Doha development round". That is indeed welcome, but can he give a further indication of what practical steps at Commonwealth level we will follow towards that end?
	On debt relief, again the issue is one of practical steps. Obviously, with Zimbabwe dominating so much of those discussions, perhaps less attention could be devoted to the matter than might otherwise have been the case. The communiqué, however, called for
	"a broader and more flexible approach to debt relief designed to achieve debt relief sustainability".
	We would ask, what better way is there to achieve that than to support the efforts to set up an international insolvency tribunal? There appears to be support for it among many countries that are saddled with debt. Perhaps the Prime Minister could give us an indication of his Government's attitude to that proposal.
	On the issue of arms—small arms in particular—and given this country's track record as one of the world's main arms exporters, the Prime Minister could take two steps to honour the commitment in the communiqué and to improve the lives of millions of people. First, we as a country and his Government could sign up to the international campaign for an international arms trade treaty. Secondly, the Government could extend extra-territorial control of British arms brokers abroad.
	Britain's commitment to peace and security would be all the more credible internationally to those that doubt it or cast aspersions against it if we took such simple and, we would argue, long overdue steps. Was there any further discussion of those matters at the summit, and has the Prime Minister any positive news to report?

Tony Blair: First, in respect of the human rights record, it may be worth reporting to the House the information given by the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, which consists of 16 local Zimbabwean human rights groups that come together and collate information on what is happening in Zimbabwe. In the first nine months of this year, there was politically motivated violence—nine murders, six attempted murders, 20 death threats, over 300 assaults, almost 400 acts of political intimidation, almost 400 acts of torture and almost 700 unlawful arrests or detentions. Those are the things that the forum can collate as directly politically motivated acts of violence. The truth of the matter is that things have got worse. As for how hard a line we take, as I say, we try to march in step with the MDC and with other organisations there, with which we remain in contact. Those are the best people to give us advice.
	In respect of political leadership on HIV/AIDS, yes, I was encouraged by the response. We will make a substantial contribution to the global fund, as well as the bilateral aid that we give, but there is a real understanding now that a major part of dealing with HIV/AIDS is political leadership. Indeed, there are countries in Africa that, through political leadership, have significantly reduced the incidence of HIV/AIDS, but it requires a no-holds-barred approach in respect of information, distribution of condoms and the availability of treatment centres to provide people with the treatment that they need. The missing two parts are the capacity within the countries, and then getting the drugs to come in.
	In respect of the Doha round, the best that the Commonwealth can do, as I said, is to give a strong statement of support in principle. It will be through other mediums that we manage the process of negotiation for ourselves through the EU. However, there is now a common willingness to get the Doha round restarted, and it is necessary to do so.
	On debt relief, we took certain steps forward. It is worth pointing out that we have seen something in the region of $60 billion worth of debt relief for the developing world since we began the process, which was very much driven from this country. I have to say that I am not convinced that the concept of an international solvency tribunal has sufficient support in creditor countries, but we are looking into how we can make the criteria for the sustainability of debt more rational in order to provide more help to the countries that really need it.
	In respect of small arms, we already prevent their sale into Africa, which is the single most important thing that we can do. We mentioned that in part of the communiqué, and countries agreed to look into further measures to prevent the sale and export of small arms to countries where there is going to be conflict. The other important thing—it is part of the New Partnership for Africa's Development process—is to develop a regional set of forces within Africa that could intervene in some of the conflicts. The truth is that many of the conflicts are driven by the desire to acquire natural resources. They often involve people who operate in small gangs, and, as we showed in Sierra Leone, they can be reasonably easily dealt with by a small number of people, but we need a capability based in Africa in order to deal with the problem.

Gerald Kaufman: I welcome what was said today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, about the progress being made in Pakistan, but is the Prime Minister aware that when I recently visited President Musharraf in Islamabad, he assured me of his determination to progress towards full democracy in Pakistan and also emphasised the importance of a negotiation between India and Pakistan that could bring about justice for all the people of Jammu and Kashmir? Will my right hon. Friend dedicate the Government's efforts to bringing about that result?

Tony Blair: My right hon. Friend is quite right about the movement towards democracy within Pakistan, which is extremely important. The signs are basically positive there. In respect of Kashmir, I was able to have a bilateral meeting with the Indian Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and I believe that there is strong desire on all sides to make progress. The key is for Pakistan to end all support for terrorism in any form and, if that proves to be the case, for India to be willing to enter into a sensible dialogue about Kashmir. I hope that the omens are better than they have been. Over the last 18 months there has been some progress, but further progress is required. I remain sure that both Governments are committed to making that progress.

Caroline Spelman: The Prime Minister referred to $100 million worth of food aid to Zimbabwe over the last two years, but aid agencies are not confident that it is getting into the right hands. Will the Government support our call for UN monitors to be installed to ensure that the food aid reaches those who it should reach?

Tony Blair: We are making every effort to do so. There are concerns about whether the food aid is reaching the people it should. Monitors are there now, and the important thing is to make sure that we take their reports back and act on them. We are doing that, but it is a constant struggle because of the attitude of the Zimbabwean Government; but I can assure the hon. Lady that the issue of independent monitoring has already been taken up. The difficulty is that it is sometimes hard to make it work on the ground.

Claire Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend what specific measures the Commonwealth agreed to take to facilitate Pakistan's becoming a full member again? What action can the Government take to encourage a necessary and vital member of the Commonwealth to return once again to full membership?

Tony Blair: The contrast with Zimbabwe could not have been greater. The Commonwealth Heads of Government accepted that Pakistan was making the right moves towards democracy and encouraged the country to carry on doing so. As soon as those criteria are met, Pakistan will be readmitted to the Councils of the Commonwealth. So far as we are concerned, it is important to keep up, through our strong bilateral relationship with Pakistan, the process of dialogue and partnership to ensure that the process towards democracy is properly fulfilled. I remain optimistic that it will be. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said a few moments ago on the basis of his conversations with him, President Musharraf recognises the need to fulfil the commitments to democracy that he has already laid out. I remain optimistic that he will do so.

John Gummer: Did the Prime Minister have the opportunity to explain to Commonwealth leaders why he was taking moneys from the aid budget for activities in Iraq; and were they impressed to find that some of those moneys were being used to pay for gender advisers?

Tony Blair: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman makes that point. It is inappropriate to do so, because we are actually trebling aid to Africa. In the next two years, we will roughly have trebled the amount of aid going to Africa, despite our commitments in Iraq, by comparison with when we came to power in 1997. This Government and this country can be proud of the commitment that we have made to Africa, but I do not believe that the money that we spent in helping Iraq towards a stable and democratic future was wasted. It is important to do both; we are doing both. With the greatest respect, it is absurd to suggest that all the money is being wasted on gender advice. The money in our aid programme is going to help the poorest people in the world, and it is making a real difference.

David Winnick: Is it not the case that when Labour Members campaigned continuously against the illegal regime of Smith, we were not told by Mugabe and his friends that we were anti-black. The accusation in those days of the settlers and their friends—some of whom were in the House of Commons—was that we were anti-white. If a Commonwealth country that has abolished the rule of law and replaced it with outright violence were allowed to remain in the Commonwealth without any suspension, what would be the point of the Commonwealth?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we decided that the suspension had to remain. It is worth pointing out two other things. First, in respect of land reform, which is often mentioned by the Government of Zimbabwe and others, it cannot be stressed too often that we provided millions of pounds of help to Zimbabwe for land reform back in the 1980s. We have maintained the position that money can be set aside for land reform in Zimbabwe provided that it is channelled through the UN development programme, so that we can be sure that it is spent on proper land reform and not secreted away by Mr. Mugabe, his henchmen and others. That is why the issue of land reform is, in the end, a diversion from the real problem of bad governance in Zimbabwe.
	Secondly, regarding the allegations of colonialism, they are particularly absurd if directed against this Government not merely because of our commitment to people in Africa and the people of Zimbabwe, but because it was our party that, although not in government, was—and I am proud to say this—at the forefront of calling for sanctions against South Africa when apartheid was in place.

Douglas Hogg: I am sure that the Prime Minister would agree that many of Mr. Mugabe's acts, both past and present, are not just morally offensive, but probably constitute crimes under national and international law. That being so, will the Prime Minister tell the House what conversations he has had with Heads of the Government to ensure that Mr. Mugabe and his henchman are made personally accountable before a court for their past and present offences?

Tony Blair: It is of course important that they be held accountable for what they have done, but the main objective of most people is to put a proper democratic regime in place in Zimbabwe and thus to have a mechanism through which the people of Zimbabwe can take the action that needs to be taken.

Tom Clarke: I welcome my right hon. Friend's confirmation that the millennium goals were discussed, even with all the other problems on the agenda. Given the mineral resources and wealth of some developing countries and the necessity that the goals should be based on transparency, accountability and fairness if the poorest people in the poorest countries are to have their needs addressed, does he think that we in Britain have a contribution to make to that growing debate?

Tony Blair: I pay tribute to what my right hon. Friend has done in that area, which has been extremely important. The best contribution that we can make is through the New Partnership for Africa's Development, which is the concept of a partnership for Africa in which more development assistance is given, and poorer countries are increasingly relieved of their debt, in return for reaching clear benchmarks on governance. It is not simply aid and development assistance that those countries need, because many of them have fundamental problems of capacity within their Governments. Their judicial, commercial, and taxation systems need fundamental reform, and the best way to assist those countries to develop their enormous wealth and resources is through that partnership. The other thing that they need is private investment, but it will not be forthcoming without the proper systems of governance.
	As I said earlier, it is vital to reach solutions to regional conflicts and then for the peace to be maintained. It is impossible to put many of those countries back on their feet, because of the conflict within their borders. Their wealth is plundered and their people constantly subjected to brutality and harassment by marauding gangs and factions fighting over the land. As we are trying to show in the Congo at present, the only way of making progress is to put in place a sufficiently robust peace that can be maintained and which allows development aid to be provided and systems of governance to be rebuilt. Otherwise, such countries will continue to be subject to the most appalling depredations which have gone on in Africa for decades; as a result, the people of a potentially rich continent remain poor.

Martin Smyth: I recognise the complex situation in Africa and welcome the positive steps that have been taken by the Commonwealth conference. Does the Prime Minister agree with those who involved in development aid who say that unless the developed countries increase their contributions, it will be many years before we reach the targets that have been set? I also wish to underline the point that was made earlier about stability in Zimbabwe. The Prime Minister said that he wants a Government for that country which can deal with the problem under their own laws, but unless we indict Mugabe he will continue to use the laws of Zimbabwe to oppress his people rather than to release them.

Tony Blair: On the latter point, it is important that we keep up maximum pressure to get the regime changed in the only way that that is likely to happen, and then the Zimbabwean people can address those issues. On the first point, it is important that we increase development aid. That is why the international financing facility, proposed by our Chancellor, is a sound idea. It is also why this country should continue to increase the aid we give as a proportion of our national income. Before we came to office, the amount fell substantially, but we have increased it year in, year out. However, we will not obtain the full support for development assistance unless it is in return for a partnership with those countries which are taking the necessary measures to improve their governance.

Stuart Bell: The entire House welcomes the Prime Minister's statement that there was a collective commitment at the conference to the relaunching of the Doha round. As my right hon. Friend said, that would be of the greatest benefit to the world's poor. In relation to the practical steps that may be taken towards that end, does he agree that when the world's Trade Ministers meet in Geneva on 15 December, the statement from the Commonwealth conference—comprising 50-odd nation states—will give impetus to those talks and provide fresh enthusiasm? It may lead not only to the relaunch of the round, but to its successful conclusion.

Tony Blair: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, and let us hope that the meeting on 15 December makes significant progress. It certainly should.

Andrew MacKay: Clearly the Prime Minister was right to say that maximum pressure must be put on the Mugabe regime. We must also take careful account of the views of the Movement for Democratic Change. The MDC tells us that there should be further sharp sanctions, especially against the crooked businessmen who are keeping the regime going, so it is disappointing to hear the Prime Minister respond to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition by saying that he would bear the need for such sanctions in mind. We should press now for sharper sanctions, because that is the way to bring the regime down.

Tony Blair: We have pressed for tougher sanctions the entire time, and next February, when the EU reconsiders its position, we will do so again. We have targeted the assets of the 79 leading members of the regime, but we have managed to freeze only £500,000 worth of assets. That is because those involved ship their assets out to other countries when they are targeted. It is therefore not only a problem for the EU, but for those other countries as well. We need to ensure that the sanctions we have in place are more effective, because they are not fully effective at present.

Tam Dalyell: I refer my right hon. Friend to paragraphs 17 to 19 of the Abuja communiqué, on Belize. Some of the poorest people in the Americas, if not in the world, live on the troubled border between Belize and Guatemala. As chairman of the all-party Latin America group, I urge the British Government to do as much as they can for the development fund that has been suggested by the Commonwealth.

Tony Blair: The issue of Belize is included in the declaration by the Heads of Government, which notes at paragraph 18 that the proposals for a final settlement of the continuing dispute
	"contain a provision for the establishment of a development fund to be used for the benefit of both countries and urged member states to contribute to it generously."
	I know that the Secretary-General will be back in contact with the members of the Commonwealth to see what contributions can be made. We want to ensure that we solve the issue in a way that protects the territorial integrity of Belize, but it is important to recognise that certain development issues have to be tackled for both countries.

Tam Dalyell: Not a great deal of money.

Tony Blair: No, it is not a great deal of money, so we should be able to do it.

Norman Lamb: The Prime Minister rightly emphasises the importance of the NEPAD initiative in improving governance, which will in turn lead to improved inward investment and increased prospects for development. What real progress is being made on NEPAD? The first big test for the initiative is Zimbabwe. Is there any evidence that African countries are getting to grips with the importance of demonstrating that they are making progress?

Tony Blair: NEPAD includes a peer review group mechanism, which has now been established. Obviously, Zimbabwe will not qualify, but other African countries accept that their only route to greater development aid and assistance is through proper governance. Zimbabwe is the worst aspect of what is happening in Africa, but several countries—including Nigeria, Ghana and Kenya—have been through that democratic process and changed their governance. They are now sitting around the table, and that is all to the good. Other countries, such as the Gambia, have returned to full, proper democracy.
	Much work remains to be done, but NEPAD is having an impact. The peer review group mechanism is making people face up to the problems that they have and is addressing the important issue of regional conflict, because it builds on the UN proposals to establish regional forces. Within the next year, we should have the beginnings of the first of those forces that can keep peace in those conflicts and allow countries to address the other measures in NEPAD, to their benefit. There is a long way to go, but the basic framework is right.

Clive Soley: Does the Prime Minister agree that the already significant influence of the Commonwealth would be greatly increased if it developed a more coherent and wide-ranging policy to deal with failed and failing states? If the Commonwealth were able to do that, it would be easier not only to deal with the case of Zimbabwe with less opposition from within the Commonwealth, but also to set a model for others.

Tony Blair: That is absolutely right, and I hope that the Commonwealth does so. I am afraid that there is a dispute between some people, especially in the region, who fear that Zimbabwe will move into greater chaos, which will have a spill-over effect on their countries and damage them and the region. Although I think that it is misguided, there is a strong feeling to that effect. My view and, I believe, the majority view of the Commonwealth—not just the so-called white countries but the Commonwealth as a whole—is that unless a strong stand is taken on Zimbabwe it will be very difficult to convince people that Africa as a whole is making the right progress towards development. That is why I have always said that Zimbabwe and what is happening there drags the reputation of Africa down, unfairly in many respects, so it is important that the problem be dealt with from within Africa itself.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Prime Minister said that there was growing awareness of the problem of HIV/AIDS, so was he able to share with the other Commonwealth Heads of Government the reasons why his Department of Health announced a few weeks ago that we had seen the largest recorded increase of that disease in this country?

Tony Blair: We are dealing with HIV/AIDS in this country and abroad. Obviously, as I pointed out a moment or two ago, we are dealing with the very serious situation in the continent of Africa. We are the second largest bilateral donor after the United States of America. Of course, there is more to do in this country and we are doing it, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to compare the state of HIV/AIDS in this country with what is happening in Africa, where there is a pandemic of the most grotesque and appalling proportions.

Joyce Quin: In consideration of terrorism-related issues, was there any discussion with Commonwealth partners, either formally or informally, of the need for strong support for reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, especially among those countries that might be able to increase such efforts, to ensure that the needs of Afghanistan are not too overshadowed by the understandable focus on Iraq?

Tony Blair: I was able to raise that matter bilaterally with several countries, and there is a clear understanding that Afghanistan needs to be helped. It is important to point out that, whatever the problems of Afghanistan today, it is an infinitely better country than it was three years ago when it was ruled by the Taliban. We are taking measures—not so much through the Commonwealth—in the United Nations and, indeed, with our NATO partners so that we spread the security force out from Kabul and so that provincial reconstruction teams help to ensure that the Government in Kabul has the right remit not just in the surrounds of Kabul but also out in the provinces. There is a general recognition that an Afghanistan that is back on its feet, or on its feet for the first time in decades, will be of huge importance to the stability of that region.

Julian Lewis: Given the dependence of Zimbabwe on South Africa, will the Prime Minister expand on the reasons, at which he hinted a few moments ago, for South Africa's reluctance to take action against the atrocious Mugabe regime? In that connection, what representations are the Government making to South Africa, and have they thought of trying to involve former President Mandela in the process?

Tony Blair: Obviously there has been a disagreement about how to deal with Zimbabwe and it is important to work primarily through the South African Government. There was a view—at least in parts of southern Africa—that if Zimbabwe were suspended from the Commonwealth we would somehow be unable to engage with Zimbabwe itself. That is just a disagreement, however, and we have to carry on trying to work through it in a reasonably diplomatic way, as we need to reach a consensus in the Commonwealth. It is fair to say that in the end, despite the reservations that South Africa had, it did not oppose the statement about continuing the suspension. The debate is continuing, but it is best continued on the basis that we are two strong allies who have a difference of view but that we will try to reach agreement.
	I only hope that people understand that the state of things in Zimbabwe is so bad that in the end the impact will be felt in the entire region, and that the best way of dealing with things is to realise that until that regime is changed the situation will continue. If the regime is changed, it would be as well that the people who then come to office understand that the Commonwealth and other parts of the world actually stood by them.

Derek Wyatt: The Prime Minister will know that I wrote to him last week as chairman of the all-party group on Zimbabwe asking whether the Commonwealth secretariat would consider arranging an eminent persons visit. I noticed that in his statement today he said that a representative group of six Commonwealth members would go. Is that the same thing; if so, has a date yet been fixed for the start of the visit?

Tony Blair: I do not think that the idea was ever that the six who formed the committee would go to Zimbabwe, but that President Obasanjo should go, and he will go, although Mr. Mugabe will claim that he goes merely as the President of Nigeria and not as the Chairman-in-Office of the Commonwealth. However, there is at the very least a feeling, even among African countries that strongly support our position on Zimbabwe, that it is important that people such as President Obasanjo go to Zimbabwe, in part to make it clear to the Zimbabwean people that initiatives are directed not against them but against the regime. I do not know whether an eminent persons group would have any impact on the situation; I suspect that at present we do best to work through the existing mechanisms.

Henry Bellingham: There is certainly widespread support in the House for the stance that the Prime Minister took on Zimbabwe during the conference, not least because the appalling regime of Mugabe is hitting the poorest in that community. However, I think that there is disappointment on the Opposition Benches at the Prime Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), as surely the one person who could really bring pressure to bear is Thabo Mbeki. The Prime Minister mentioned the MDC; it, too, wants Thabo Mbeki to take a much more leading role in getting a grip on things. Why does the Prime Minister feel that Thabo Mbeki is being so weak, so half-hearted and so negative?

Tony Blair: If we want the President of South Africa to play a role, we do best to deal with the situation in a way that helps him to do so. If I can put things diplomatically, where there is disagreement—as there is over this matter—rather than engaging in an attack on the South African position, it is best simply to indicate why we feel so strongly that the right way to deal with the situation is to change the regime in Zimbabwe and to work with other countries to ensure that. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we make those points very strongly indeed, but there is a way to do it and we must be careful about that.

Hugh Bayley: Given that two-thirds of all the people in the world who are infected with the HIV virus live in Commonwealth countries, does the Prime Minister believe that the Commonwealth as a whole, not just Britain, has a unique role in providing leadership in the fight against HIV and AIDS? What are African member countries doing to argue that the fight against AIDS should take greater priority in the work of the NEPAD secretariat, and what are the Government doing in preparation for our presidency of the G8 and the EU to ensure that it forms an important part of our agenda?

Tony Blair: The African countries are taking measures to ensure that they have capacity in their own countries to deal with HIV/AIDS, and a few weeks ago, President Bush and I met several health Ministers from African countries to discuss that. For us, issues relating to climate change and to Africa—including, of course, the problem of HIV/AIDS—will be a main part of our G8 presidency in 2005. That will send out a strong signal of the priority that we attach to those issues.

Andrew Robathan: I am sure that we all agree entirely with what the Prime Minister has said about Zimbabwe, but may I take him back to the maximum pressure to which he referred earlier? How about adopting the suggestion made by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and withdrawing the honorary knighthood that Mugabe was given in 1994? How about raising the matter at the Security Council of the United Nations where it can be debated in world forums and the world can see—as can Zimbabweans and black Africans—the contempt in which Mugabe is held? How about extending the sanctions list to the same people as New Zealand does, so that the immediate families of Mugabe's cronies cannot travel around the world spending their ill-gotten gains, and in particular so that Bredenkamp and the paymasters of Mugabe's regime cannot travel around Britain spending their ill-gotten gains?

Tony Blair: As I said earlier, when the sanctions come up, we should certainly consider how they could be extended without giving people false solace about how effective they might be in sinking the regime. I will certainly consider the honorary knighthood, although I somewhat question how great the impact of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would be on President Mugabe.

Andrew Robathan: It is a symbol.

Tony Blair: All these things are symbols, but in the end the most important thing is, as I say, to work to ensure that the pressure does not just come from here, but from within the region.
	In respect of the UN, as I said before, we raise this issue regularly at the UN. It is important, however, that we do not put a resolution before the UN Security Council, in particular, unless we are sure that it would succeed because, if we put one and it failed, the impact would be adverse.

Harry Barnes: On Zimbabwe, does not Nigeria itself show what Commonwealth pressure can bring about in advancing democratic provisions? For instance, the African meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association was recently held in Abuja—perhaps, in time, another such meeting will be held in Harare—and a spin-off is that the Nigerian arrangements to deal with HIV/AIDS have developed into a progressive programme, considerably assisted by our own Department for International Development.

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, Nigeria represents a model example of a country returning to democracy, and Commonwealth pressure assisted in that, which is why the Commonwealth continuing to suspend Zimbabwe will, of course, have its own impact.

George Osborne: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

George Osborne: I thank my colleagues.
	I agree with everything that the Prime Minister says about HIV/AIDS. Of course he is right to work with the drug companies to try to reduce the cost of the drugs, but does he agree that pharmaceutical research is phenomenally expensive—AstraZeneca employs 5,000 on research in my constituency alone—and that it would be a tragedy if the campaign against HIV/AIDS turned into a campaign against international drug companies? We need their help and research, and we must not demonise them.

Tony Blair: It is precisely for that reason that we as a Government have given such strong support to science and research over the past few years. Yes, of course it is important that drug companies play their part, but they are part of the solution, and part of the solution involves us trying in so far as possible, while protecting their interests, to reduce the cost of the generic drugs that can be used to treat HIV/AIDS patients. All the indications now are that such drugs are available—the drug companies have played their part in that—and if we can only put the right capacity together in those countries whose people are suffering from HIV/AIDS, we will be able to take a significant step forward in the treatment of the disease. If the drug companies play their part in that, they should be congratulated.

Stephen McCabe: May I return to the world trade talks? Does the Prime Minister agree that the Commonwealth is an ideally placed organisation and perhaps should do more to campaign on the principles of movements such as the Traidcraft movement, which suggest that investment in trade for developing countries is a good thing, but that it must be done in a manner that supports and reinforces sustainable progress? It should be made absolutely clear to the businesses involved that we will not tolerate exploitative or corrupt practices of the kind that would be intolerable in this country.

Tony Blair: I am sure that it is right that, when we open up world trade, we do so responsibly. The important thing is to ensure that we break down the open tariffs and barriers as well as the hidden barriers; but the point that my hon. Friend makes about Traidcraft is welcome. Orders of the Day

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
	 — 
	[2nd Allotted Day]

Further considered.

New Clause 10
	 — 
	Local Development Plan

'(1) The local planning authority must prepare and maintain a plan to be known as their local development plan ("the plan") which will contain a number of Local Development Documents, each of which will cover a different subject matter as specified in the plan.
	(2) The plan must specify—
	(a) the documents which are to be local development documents ("the documents");
	(b) the subject matter and geographical area to which each document is to relate;
	(c) which documents (if any) are to be prepared jointly with one or more other local planning authorities which will be treated the same as if one single authority had prepared it;
	(d) any matter or area in respect of which the authority have agreed to (or propose to agree) to the constitution of a joint committee under section 28;
	(e) the timetable for the preparation and revision of the documents;
	(f) such other matters as are prescribed.
	(3) Different plan documents must, amongst other matters, include:
	(a) those matters in which the County Council or Unitary Authority has a role;
	(b) a plan for each of the larger settlements as detailed in the plan;
	(c) a plan for any other settlement which may be designated in the plan;
	(d) a plan detailing all section 106 matters including the formula or tariff including the provision of social housing;
	(e) a plan detailing how specific planning designations, such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty will be operated;
	(f) a plan detailing how land use, sustainability and economic regeneration are to be managed;
	(g) such other matters as the Secretary of State prescribes.
	(4) The local planning authority may withdraw their plan or documents at any time before they are formally adopted.
	(5) The local planning authority must—
	(a) prepare the plan and documents in accordance with such other requirements as are prescribed;
	(b) submit the plan and documents to the Secretary of State at such time as is prescribed or as the Secretary of State (in a particular case) directs;
	(c) at that time send a copy of the plan and documents to the RPB or (if the authority are a London borough) to the Mayor of London;
	(d) prepare, publish and have regard to a Statement of Community Involvement as negotiated by section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22).
	(6) The Secretary of State may direct the local planning authority to make such amendments to the plan or documents as he thinks appropriate, but only when the Secretary of State and Authority can not agree on any matter.
	(7) A direction under subsection (6) above must contain the Secretary of State's reasons for giving it.
	(8) The local planning authority must comply with a direction given under subsection (5).
	(9) The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the following matters—
	(a) publicity about the plan and documents;
	(b) making the plan and documents available for inspection by the public;
	(c) requirements to be met for the purpose of bringing the plan and documents into effect.
	(10) The local planning authority must revise their local development plan and documents—
	(a) at such time as they consider appropriate;
	(b) when directed to do so by the Secretary of State.
	(11) Subsections (2) to (10) above apply to the revision of a plan or documents as they apply to the preparation of the plan or documents.
	(12) When preparing the local development plan or documents under (1) and (2) above the local planning authority must have regard to—
	(a) national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State;
	(b) the RSS for the region in which the area of the authority is situated, if the area is outside Greater London;
	(c) the spatial development strategy if the authority are a London borough or if any part of the authority's area adjoins Greater London;
	(d) the RSS for any region which adjoins the area of the authority;
	(e) the Wales Spatial Plan if any part of the authority's area adjoins Wales;
	(f) the community strategy prepared by the authority;
	(g) the community strategy for any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority;
	(h) any other local development document which has been adopted by the authority;
	(i) the resources likely to be available for implementing the proposals in the document;
	(j) such other matters as the Secretary of State prescribes.
	(13) The local planning authority must submit their local development plan and documents in their entirety to the Secretary of State for independent examination.
	(14) But the authority must not submit such a plan or document unless—
	(a) they have complied with any relevant requirements contained in regulations under this Part, and
	(b) they are satisfied that they are ready for independent examination.
	(15) The authority must also send to the Secretary of State (in addition to the development plan) such other documents (or copies of documents) and such information as is prescribed.
	(16) The examination must be carried out by a person appointed by the Secretary of State to be known as the Independent Inspector.
	(17) The purpose of an independent examination is to determine in respect of the local development plan and documents—
	(a) whether they satisfy the requirements in this section;
	(b) whether they are sound in all material aspects.
	(18) Any person who makes representations seeking to change a development plan must (if he so requests) be given the opportunity to submit a summary of each person's representations in writing to the Independent Inspector (as defined in subsection 16), who may decline the evidence if he has reason to believe that it is a repetition of evidence which he has already received from another person.
	(19) The Independent Inspector must—
	(a) make recommendations; and
	(b) give reasons for those recommendations.
	(20) The local planning authority must publish the recommendations made under subsection (19).'.—[Mr. Clifton-Brown.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 19—Local Development Plan (No. 2)—
	'(1) The local planning authority must prepare and maintain a plan to be known as their local development plan ("the Plan") which will contain a number of Local Development Documents ("the Documents"), each of which will cover a different subject matter as specified in the plan.
	(2) The Plan must specify—
	(a) the Documents;
	(b) the subject matter and geographical area to which each of the Documents is to relate;
	(c) which Documents (if any) are to be prepared jointly with one or more other local planning authorities which will be treated the same as if one single authority had prepared it;
	(d) any matter or area in respect of which the authority have agreed (or propose to agree) to the constitution of a joint committee under section 28;
	(e) such other matters as are prescribed.
	(3) When preparing the Plan or the Documents under (1) and (2) above the local planning authority must have regard to—
	(a) national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State;
	(b) the RSS for the region in which the area of the authority is situated, if the area is outside Greater London;
	(c) the spatial development strategy if the authority are a London borough or if any part of the authority's area adjoins Greater London;
	(d) the RSS for any region which adjoins the area of the authority;
	(e) the Wales Spatial Plan if any part of the authority's area adjoins Wales;
	(f) the Plan of any adjoining Local Planning Authority together with any of its documents which may be relevant;
	(g) the community strategy prepared by the authority;
	(h) the community strategy for any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority;
	(i) any other local development document which has been adopted by the authority;
	(j) the resources likely to be available for implementing the proposals in the Documents;
	(4) The "Documents" must include inter alia—
	(a) a statement of those matters in which the County Council has a role;
	(b) a Document for each of the larger settlements as detailed in the "plan".
	(c) a Document for any other settlement which may be designated in the plan;
	(d) a Document detailing the matters relating to the Authority's policies on planning contributions and the provisions of social housing;
	(e) a "document" containing policies for areas where there are specific planning designations, such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks;
	(f) a Document detailing how land use, sustainability and economic regeneration are to be managed;
	(g) such other matters as the Secretary of State prescribes.
	(5) The local planning authority must—
	(a) prepare the Plan and the Documents in accordance with such other requirements as are prescribed;
	(b) submit the Plan and the Documents to the Secretary of State at such time as is prescribed or as the Secretary of State (in a particular case) directs;
	(c) at that time send a copy of the Plan and the Documents to the RPB or (if the authority are a London borough) to the Mayor of London;
	(d) prepare, publish and have regard to a Statement of Community Involvement when preparing the Plan and the Documents as negotiated by section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22).
	(6) The local planning authority may withdraw the Plan or the Documents at any time before submission to the Secretary of State in accordance with (5)(b).
	(7) The Secretary of State may direct the local planning authority to make such amendments to the Plan or the Documents as he thinks appropriate.
	(8) A direction under subsection (7) above must contain the Secretary of State's reasons for giving it.
	(9) The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the following matters—
	(a) publicity about the Plan and the Documents;
	(b) making the Plan and the Documents available for inspection by the public;
	(c) requirements and timetable to be met for the purpose of bringing the Plan and the Documents into effect, which may not exceed six months.
	(10) The local planning authority must revise their local development plan and Documents—
	(a) at such time as they consider appropriate, which may not be later than five years from the date the plan came into effect;
	(b) when directed to do so by the Secretary of State.
	(11) Subsections (2) to (10) above apply to the revision of a plan or documents as they apply to the preparation of the Plan or the Documents.
	(12) The local planning authority must submit their local development plan and documents in their entirety to the Secretary of State for independent examination at the times and in the manner laid down in subsections (5) and (10).
	(13) But the authority must not submit such a plan or document unless—
	(a) they have complied with any relevant requirements contained in regulations under this Part, and
	(b) they are satisfied that they are ready for independent examination.
	(14) The authority must also send to the Secretary of State (in addition to the development plan) such other documents (or copies of documents) and such information as is prescribed.
	(15) The examination must be carried out by a person appointed by the Secretary of State to be known as "the Independent Inspector."
	(16) The purpose of an independent examination is to determine in respect of the local development plan and documents—
	(a) whether they satisfy the requirements in this section;
	(b) whether they are sound in all material aspects;
	(c) whether all or part of the Plan and the Documents need to be subject of the examination.
	(17) Any person who makes representations seeking to change a development Plan or Documents must (if he so requests) be given the opportunity to submit a summary of his representations in writing to the Independent Inspector who may decline to hear either in writing or orally the evidence if he has reason to believe that it is a repetition of evidence which he has already received from another person.
	(18) The independent inspector must within three months unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of State—
	(a) make recommendations;
	(b) give reasons for the recommendations.
	(19) The local planning authority must within one month publish the recommendations made under subsection (18) which must be either confirmed by the Secretary of State or modified and published with reasons within the prescribed period under subsection (9)(c).
	(20) The local planning authority must comply with directions given by the Secretary of State under subsections (2), (4), (6), (7), (9), (10), (12), (14), (18) and (19).'.
	Amendment No. 39, in page 8, line 12, leave out Clause 14.
	Amendment No. 40, in page 9, line 16 [Clause 15], leave out 'scheme' and insert 'plan'.
	Amendment No. 41, in page 9, line 25, leave out Clause 16.
	Amendment No. 42, in page 10, line 22 [Clause 17], leave out subsection (3).
	Amendment No. 43, in page 10, line 34, leave out Clause 18.
	Amendment No. 27, in page 10, line 40 [Clause 18], at end insert—
	'(aa) the housing strategy prepared by the authority under the Local Government Act;'.
	Amendment No. 44, in page 11, line 27, leave out Clause 19.
	Amendment No. 45, in page 12, line 8, leave out Clause 20.
	Amendment No. 46, in page 13, line 4, leave out Clause 21.
	Amendment No. 47, in page 13, line 14, leave out Clause 22.
	Amendment No. 83, in page 13, line 35 [Clause 23], at end insert—
	'(c) any recommendations made by the person appointed to carry out the independent examination of the document.'.
	Amendment No. 84, in page 13, line 36 [Clause 23], leave out subsections (2) to (4).
	Amendment No. 48, in page 14, line 27 [Clause 24], leave out 'document' and insert 'plan'.
	Amendment No. 49, in page 14, line 29 [Clause 24], leave out 'document' and insert 'plan'.
	Amendment No. 50, in page 14, line 31, leave out Clause 25.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am very pleased to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, on this group of new clauses and amendments. For the convenience of the House, may I say straight away that new clause 10 has been supplemented by new clause 19? When I tabled new clause 10, I realised that it could be improved, so I shall speak to the revised version—new clause 19—but I do not say that new clause 19 could not be improved as well. I would very much welcome the Minister and his civil servants attempting to improve it, if he were minded to accept it. We shall come to that a little later, but although I suspect that he is not minded to accept it. Nevertheless, I have carefully studied the Minister's remarks in Committee during the previous Session, and I have redrafted my proposals in light of the criticisms that he made then, so I hope that new clause 19 will meet with his full approval and that he will accept it. [Interruption.] I live in hope. It is better to travel in hope than to arrive.
	New clause 19 deals with the whole local plan-making procedure, and the success or failure of the Bill rests entirely on whether the regional and local plan-making processes actually work. I shall not say anything about the regional plan-making process because it is not relevant to new clause 19. Suffice it to say that the Opposition oppose the regional plan-making process. I want to deal with the local plan-making process, which is hideously complicated. Indeed, I have good reason to believe that even the Minister and his civil servants do not fully carry at the top of their heads exactly how it works.
	New clause 19, which I have drafted, would combine eight or nine clauses, depending on which we include and which we exclude, so halving the number of pages. Moreover, this is not just a simple question of consolidation; new clause 19 would make it far easier for local authorities, businesses and, indeed, all those who get involved in the planning process to understand how the local plan-making process worked in one simple new clause. I shall state why I think that it is superior to the Government's eight or nine clauses.
	The Government's stated wish is to produce a simpler, fairer and more transparent planning system. The local plan-making process contained in part 2—clauses 12 to 36—is highly complex. Instead of all the various categories contained in the Bill—the local development schemes, the local development documents, the local development frameworks, the local development plan documents and the joint development documents and schemes, and so on—all with their own provisions for commencement, revision, community involvement, appeals and independent inspections, I propose a simplification that uses just two categories: local plans and local documents. The Bill deals with those two categories. Again, instead of six different tiers and frameworks, I have two—much simpler than the Bill.
	New clause 19 would provide county councils with a statutory role—something that the Government have consistently failed to do. Unfortunately, we will probably not reach new clause 23, which I also tabled. Nevertheless, a statutory role for county councils is important because we believe that county councils, in some cases centuries old, have built up a huge bank of knowledge that could be lost to the planning process if we are not careful. We cannot even consider an amendment that would make county councils statutory consultees in the new regional strategy documents.

John Gummer: The Government do not dismiss the fact that some parts of the country will clearly not have elected regional assemblies. Clearly, my own area will not a have regional assembly. Does my hon. Friend agree that county councils provide an important input into planning in those areas? What he proposes would be very much supported throughout the shire counties of England—areas such as my own.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend is exactly right. We tried very hard in Committee to persuade the Government to give county councils a statutory role in the regional plan-making process. Although we won the argument, we failed because the Government used their huge majority. Members of another place will wish to return to this subject. At this stage, however, I am dealing with the local plan-making procedure, and it is absolutely right that county councils have a statutory and proper role in that process.
	My new clause deals with clause 14, which provides that documents should be submitted to the Secretary of State for independent inspection. Both my new clause, however, which is modelled on the Bill, and the Bill itself provide that other documents are to be submitted to the Secretary of State. The Law Society and others have concerns about that provision, because they feel that if other arbitrary documents are submitted, confusion may arise about what are legal documents and what are not. I would therefore prefer the new clause to be drawn with just the plan and the documents, and no other documents, to be submitted.
	My proposed new subsection (6) allows the local planning authority to withdraw its documents at any time up to submission to the Secretary of State. The Bill allows those documents to be withdrawn at any time up to adoption. In other words, they can go through all the independent examination, and consultation with neighbouring authorities, regional planning bodies and so on, and then suddenly, a few days prior to adoption, be withdrawn. What a waste of time and money.
	In my proposed new subsection (8), the Secretary of State must give reasons for directing a local authority to make amendments to its plan. Again, if a local planning authority has gone through all its committee structures, has carried out its community involvement, has consulted the regional planning body and neighbouring authorities, as required under my new clause and the Bill, and the Secretary of State comes along and directs it to change the plan, surely it is only reasonable and fair that he must give his reasons for doing so. The Bill does not provide for that.
	My proposed new subsection (16) provides that all or part of the plan and documents are to be subject to an independent examination. That gives much greater flexibility than the Bill, which requires all documents to be subject to an independent examination. I envisage that under my system, the plan, which sets out the overall strategy for the area, might remain in place for 10 years. The analogy in relation to my system is that the plan is the filing cabinet and the documents are the individual drawers or files within it. The plan might therefore remain, but the documents, which cover all sorts of areas—[Interruption.] Yes, I know that the Minister for Housing and Planning will say that that is his plan, but the trouble is that it is not, because he has so many other different categories. I have just two: a filing cabinet and drawers. Anybody who wants to do so can pull out those drawers at any time, and they can be subject to revision, independent examination and re-adoption of the new plan—simple, flexible and easy to revise. One of the Minister's main criticisms of my proposal in Committee related to that.
	My proposed new subsection (17) provides that in an independent hearing certain repetitive evidence need not be considered by the inspector. We all know of cases in which action groups—suddenly formed, not particularly well organised and with one typewritten statement—file into an independent hearing one by one and read out exactly the same statement. Surely the inspector must have powers to disregard such repetitive evidence, or a great deal of time could be wasted under clause 19(6), which provides that everybody must be heard orally. The Minister must consider that, if nothing else in my new clause.

John Gummer: Does not my hon. Friend agree that for a very long time inspectors have requested, when they are going over such repetitive ground, that they should be able to say, "We have heard about that, we know about it, and we can now move on." Is it not a great pity that the Government have not taken their advice?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I imagine that my right hon. Friend, who is a former Secretary of State for the Environment and has huge experience in these matters, will have come across this problem time and again. He makes a timely and potent intervention, and I hope that the Minister will consider such an amendment even if he does not consider anything else.

David Wright: I have some sympathy with the point that has just been made about saving time in inquiries. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that it is important that if 100 people, for example, submit the same piece of evidence, those 100 people are counted as objectors or supporters of a proposal? If we are not careful, the system that he proposes could be used to lower the number of objections, and in some cases stop an inquiry being triggered.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. I would have no objection—in fact, I would find it desirable—if when the independent inspector makes his report he were to say, "And 150 residents of Little Acacia on the Green objected to this proposal with the same evidence. Although I took evidence from Mrs. Black, I had similar evidence from another 149 residents." That would be perfectly reasonable, and I do not seek to stop it in any way whatever. We need some form of power, however, to stop repetitive evidence. After all, in this House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would soon rule me out of order if you felt that what I was saying was unduly repetitive—indeed, Standing Orders provide that you do that. A court of law may do exactly the same thing. There does not therefore seem to be any reason why an independent inspector in a planning hearing should not be able to do the same.
	My new clause provides for strict times within which various events should happen. Again, the Secretary of State reserves powers to do that by regulations in the Bill. Those are arbitrary, however, and can be revised at any time. It is vital that timetables, or at least the main timetables, are laid down in statute. Otherwise, the new system will fall into exactly the same failure as the present system. The problem with the present one is that nobody forces local authorities to draw up their plans and to revise them within a certain timetable. Unless that is rigorously upheld, with the complexity of the new system, we will hear every excuse under the sun as to why the new plans are not to be revised. My new clause therefore provides that within five years the plan and the documents must be revised. On reflection, the plan must be looked at but it does not have to be revised—some documents, however, must be revised within the five-year period.

Sydney Chapman: I very much agree with my hon. Friend on the need to introduce sensible timetables for provision and revision of development plans—I prefer to call them development plans rather than documents or schemes as he has done in his amendments. Good precedent for that, whether or not the system works properly, is provided by the fact that a local planning authority is required to give a determination of a planning application within eight weeks; otherwise, the applicant has the right to appeal.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend, who has huge experience in these matters—he referred yesterday to his entry in the Register of Members' Interests and to his previous posts—is absolutely right. A strict timetable should be in place, particularly for revisions of plans, or at least of documents—perhaps the plan should be looked at to determine whether it is still current, but the documents must be revised.
	The timetable should then provide that when the plans have been submitted to the Secretary of State for independent inspection, the independent inspector has three months to carry out his work. Again, unless the independent inspector has a strict timetable, things will just drift and not get done. There must be a proper impetus for him to provide his report within three months unless the Secretary of State directs otherwise. The local authority must then publish the results within one month—having received his report, which may in some cases be quite lengthy, there is no reason why it should not do so. When the Secretary of State confirms the plan or modifies it, there is no reason why it should not be brought into effect within six months.
	I am not saying that those timetables are absolutely right, but some form of timetable along the lines that I have suggested must make eminent sense. Again, I hope that the Minister will consider whether those timetables can be included in the Bill rather than being determined by regulations, which are arbitrary and can be revised at any time.
	New clause 10 represents a simpler approach. It considers the plan-making process as one entity to allow local planning authorities, businesses and individuals to be much clearer about how the system works and make them more likely to become involved in the process. If it is to be as complicated as the Bill prescribes, people will feel alienated from the planning process and will not have a clue about it. Few people get involved in the planning process even now. They become frightfully surprised when a planning application for several houses next door comes along and a local authority says, "We can't refuse that because it was in the plan that we made four years ago," although the residents had no idea about the plan. That is an unsatisfactory way in which to proceed, so I hope that the new process will at the very least encourage more people to participate in the community element of the plan-making process.
	The already overly complicated plan-making process has been made even more complex by yesterday's proceedings, so I fear that it will drown under such complexity. If that happens, the Bill will utterly fail to achieve the Government's stated aim of promoting speed, transparency, community development and a user-friendly process, with the net result that economic growth and sustainability will suffer.
	The Government will probably reject new clause 10 today, but I hope that those in another place will appreciate that having one holistic whole—a dreadful phrase—for the local plan-making process, set out in a relatively simple new clause, would be far better than the provisions in the Government's eight equivalent clauses.

David Wright: I rise to provoke a debate on amendment No. 27, which I tabled. The amendment relates to local housing strategies and was prompted by my discussions with the National Housing Federation and the Chartered Institute of Housing. I appreciate that the amendment has arrived on the scene somewhat late, but it is worthy of discussion. I should declare an interest as a full member of the Chartered Institute of Housing. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) said yesterday that, rather than receiving any money from such bodies, he paid them. Similarly, rather than receiving any resources from the Chartered Institute of Housing, it takes money off me—I draw no financial benefit from it at all. Both the institute and the National Housing Federation are excellent organisations that contribute to the wider debate on housing and planning in the UK.
	I want to discuss the broad parameters of the link between housing and planning, although I do not intend to take up too much of the House's time. The amendment is an attempt to join up local housing and planning strategies, so that better planned housing that matches local economic, social and environmental needs can be delivered. It would ensure that the local housing strategy was explicitly included in the list of considerations to which local development documents must have regard.
	Before I came into the House, I spent a long time working as a housing strategy manager. I tried to integrate the workings of a large local authority's planning and housing departments—it was quite a struggle at times. Documents such as local housing strategies were often produced completely independently of local planning documentation. Local plans tended to be dominated by professional planning officers who worked at regional level, often with little input from other local authority officers. Housing targets cascaded down the system and arrived on the doorstep of housing strategy officers after decisions were signed, sealed and delivered. It is important to integrate housing strategies more effectively with the local planning process.
	For many years, local housing strategies were framed by local authorities' ownership of large amounts of municipal stock. In the 1980s, the then Government rightly promoted the establishment of an enabling authority—the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was involved in that. Local authorities' strategic housing functions are extremely important because they need to be integrated effectively and coherently with local plans.
	I have made the case for better integration. Strategies are often inconsistent and conflict with each other. Many local authorities have housing strategies that promote the growth of affordable housing, but local planning documents often do not take any account of that, which means that sites do not become available for new housing developments. There is often a deep conflict between the actions of local authority departments. We need to put that right, which is why amendment No. 27 would provide that local housing strategies must be considered as a key component of the development of local planning documentation.
	The amendment would create a strong incentive for authorities to reconcile planning and housing policies. It would provide for greater clarity and decrease the number of disputes involving authorities and their stakeholders, especially on planning applications for housing developments. Perhaps most important, it would create a culture of positive planning for housing by reinforcing the mutual importance of planning and housing in achieving sustainable development.
	Why should we co-ordinate the strategies? It is no longer appropriate to think about the housing market and affordable housing separately. We must ensure that areas have a single perspective on the housing market because people move across sectors and tenures to find suitable housing. We need a comprehensive analysis that covers all elements of the housing market in a local area, so planning documentation requires a comprehensive understanding of the way in which the housing market operates. We need to promote a good mix of housing types—houses for affordable rent, shared ownership and owner-occupation—because that creates more stable and sustainable neighbourhoods. We must integrate our housing approach with authorities' wider planning strategies, because factors such as transport, communication and proximity to community facilities are important.

Richard Younger-Ross: I agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. The importance of what he is saying is shown by the fact that developers may currently say, "Okay, we'll do 20 or 30 per cent. affordable housing," yet design two estates with a wall through the middle, so that social and private housing are never mixed. His point is well put: we need integration, rather than fencing communities off from each other.

David Wright: The hon. Gentleman is right. We need to develop what could perhaps be called "tenure-blind estates", in which people could walk down a road without being able to tell which properties were rented, owner-occupied or in shared ownership. We need a process to integrate tenures throughout a neighbourhood and to ensure that all facilities are consistent for everyone living there. That is how balance may be achieved and sustainable communities built.
	Another key point about the co-ordination of strategies for housing is that the delivery of affordable housing is being hampered because of inconsistencies in local plans and housing strategies. That provides an opportunity for appeals against decisions. Local housing authorities need to do much more to understand their housing markets and they should integrate the results of housing need and housing market surveys into their planning strategies. Developers often challenge authorities because they are not confident that their housing market analysis is correct. Such authorities tend to back off because they are not sure that they can win the case. We need a strong and consistent approach between authorities' housing and planning departments to ensure that, if cases are taken to appeal, housing officers will have a commitment from their planning colleagues that the assessments will be defended.
	Government policy is starting to tackle failing housing markets but I wonder whether planning practice is responding to that. When we develop comprehensive regeneration strategies for areas in consultation with communities, we need to ensure that our planning colleagues—if I may say that as an ex-housing strategy officer—respond to them positively and plan estates coherently and effectively.
	The debate has been enjoyable. It is a bit like groundhog day, with the same few Members in the Chamber, but the debate has been of a high quality.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Amendment No. 27 recognises that the Local Government Act 1992 requires local authorities to draw up a housing plan. They are also required to draw up a homelessness plan under the Homelessness Act 2002 and a sustainability plan under this Bill. The Opposition are keen that all the plans should mesh together; otherwise local authorities will drown under the weight of drawing up separate plans with separate provisions.

David Wright: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments—that is why my probing amendment was tabled. I want to hear what the Minister has to say about how the new structure will integrate the variety of strategies that local authorities are required to produce. In particular, it will be interesting to hear what guidance will be issued to local authorities on the integration of housing strategy with planning policy.
	Our debates have been interesting on both days. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response before I decide whether to press my amendment to a vote.

Matthew Green: In tabling the new clauses and attached amendments, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has given us an opportunity to discuss the scheme at the heart of the plan. Once again, he has produced a revised alternative scheme.
	We have been discussing the Bill for almost 12 months and there is now a great danger of consensus emerging, with our positions getting closer and closer.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: But is that not what Parliament is all about—debating matters until a consensus is reached? The Government approach things with a sledgehammer, using their huge majority to vote out any sensible proposals from wherever they emerge.

Matthew Green: If a consensus emerges, that is all good and well. Some of us have moved along a little faster than the hon. Gentleman, for whom it is sometimes a case of "Hurry up at the back."

David Wright: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it was a good idea to carry the Bill over into this Session? That gave us even more time to consider it and allowed the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) enough time to prepare his notes.

Matthew Green: The extra time, perhaps unintentionally on the part of the Government back in January, has been valuable for a huge number of reasons. The hon. Gentleman may have touched on one of them.
	A consensus is building around the idea of a flexible scheme. Before the Minister claims the phrase as his own, I think I originally referred to a filing cabinet or box file comprising a series of folders. He pinched my words and used them around the country, and I am delighted to have given him such assistance. After our deliberations in Committee, the hon. Member for Cotswold has moved on to similar ground. There is an understanding that we need a flexible scheme.
	A local example highlights why such a scheme is needed. It concerns an application for an eco-business park on the edge of Ludlow, currently before the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who is the planning Minister for the west midlands. South Shropshire district council realised that it was running out of business development land. It is revising its local plan, but its implementation is probably about 18 months to two years away. The council will run out of business development land before the plan is likely to come into force.
	Almost two years ago, the council entered into a process of considering where future business development land might be. It is a controversial process, because no one wants to be next to such land. The council held an inquiry in public, although it cannot be called a public inquiry, over two days. All sorts of organisations were able to give evidence, and possible sites became clear. The council committee made a decision on them and adopted their development as part of council policy. They are included in the new draft local plan but are obviously not in the current plan.
	An application has been made, which the council accepted, but it has been called in because it is not in the current plan. The difficulty is that the process has been gone into in great detail locally. In fact, the Audit Commission holds it up as an excellent example of open local government. A more flexible scheme would have allowed South Shropshire district council to make changes to the local development document. The application would not have encountered the same difficulties and Government officials would not be clawing all over it. So greater flexibility is important.
	As the hon. Member for Cotswold said, new clause 19 is the key clause. However, it is deficient. He is trying hard to produce something so that he does not have to agree with the Government's scheme, although his proposals are close to it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Consensus is breaking out.

Matthew Green: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman might as well accept that the Government's scheme is satisfactory.
	Unlike the Government's proposal, new clause 19 does not stipulate that statements of community involvement are to be documents in the scheme. The effective use of statements of community involvement will speed up the planning process more than anything else. The schemes that go through the planning process with the least difficulty are those on which there has been the greatest consultation before a planning application is made. The most enlightened developers do that with large schemes. They carry out extensive local consultations, which iron out many of the problems, before the application is made.
	I hope that councils will be encouraged to ensure that there is sufficient pre-consultation on those elements. The problem is, of course, that we do not know for sure whether that will happen until the regulations and guidance are published in their final form, but the suggestion is built into the Government's scheme. Unfortunately, however, it is not included in new clause 19. Perhaps the hon. Member for Cotswold intends it to be included in another document under subsection (4) (g), which refers to:
	"such matters as the Secretary of State prescribes."
	Statements of community involvement are fundamental to the success of a faster and more open planning system. I am surprised at their absence from the new clause.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is confusing two things. Community involvement in plan making is one thing; pre-application discussions on an individual application are a different matter.
	New clause 19(3)(g) would ensure that the local planning authority has regard to community strategy. The Local Government Act 1992 requires local authorities to draw up a statement of community strategy. As that will have to be done anyway, why should it also be one of the documents? If a local planning authority does not have regard to that community strategy, it will be subject to judicial review.

Matthew Green: I think that the hon. Gentleman fails to understand the full importance of the potential of a statement of community involvement. When the council draws up such a statement, it will set out exactly the way in which the community will be involved in individual plans. It is a document in the scheme and it sets out the process. There is no mention of a statement of community involvement, but there is mention of a community strategy, which is a different issue. I shall understand if the hon. Gentleman says that he meant to mention a statement of community involvement in the new clause, which has had various incarnations as it has moved gradually towards being the same as the Government's proposal.
	There is another area with which I have some difficulty. A number of councils—I mention South Shropshire council again, but only because I know it well as it is in my constituency—have been quite forward thinking in developing planning policies. There is no law that prevents that. South Shropshire council has its own separate document setting out its affordable housing policy. It also has its own separate document on policy that relates to how it deals with mast applications, which is quite a controversial issue. That is something that many councils have not done. The council uses the document to guide those who are making mast applications so that they know how they will be dealt with—central Government have not said that the council cannot adopt that approach. It is creating effective local policies in other ways, too.
	My understanding of the Government's scheme is that, in effect, local development documents will be allowed to include documents that relate not only to geographical areas, not only to settlements, not only to housing and not only to areas of outstanding natural beauty, but also to specific areas such as business development land and a strategy for dealing with masts, for example. That is a great degree of flexibility, local decision making and local choice. I thought that all three parties were trying to compete with one another to show just how much they are in favour of the new localism, to use a word that comes from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I do not think that there is sufficient flexibility in new clause 19 to allow councils to do that. There is too much structure in the clause.
	I used to think, particularly back in January, that the Government had created a scheme that involved a plethora of new terms and far too many new clauses. In creating flexibility, it is difficult to have only one scheme. I urge the hon. Member for Cotswold to withdraw new clause 19 which, as I have said, moves broadly down the route that the Government have taken.
	I am pleased that the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) tabled amendment No. 27. He was right to do so. I suspect that it will not be necessary to give effect to it, but it has enabled him to raise some important issues relating to housing strategies and their close involvement with local planning. I was struck by his rightful call to see proper mixed-tenure estates, rather than divided estates. The Government need to be careful that by changing section 106, which we debated yesterday, they do not create a situation where non-mixed tenure estates are encouraged by the back door. One way to avoid that is the close involvement of housing strategies in local plans. I hope that the Government guidance will include a strong line recommending to councils that that is exactly what the Government would expect to see. We do not want all the social housing at one end of the settlement and the owner occupiers at the other end, with a high wall and protective fencing round it. Heaven forbid that we ever move down that route.

Mark Francois: When I served in local government, we did much to try to promote shared ownership housing—this meets the sort of objective that the hon. Gentleman and others have been talking about. We found that that worked well on mixed-tenure estates, and also when such housing was built next to private estates. It did not seem to worry anybody and it gave everybody an opportunity to get a foot on a rung of the housing ladder. It is something of which I have always been proud.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Given house prices, we shall have to see a growth of shared equity of various forms. There are various ways of arriving at shared equity. The key thrust is not only mixed-tenure estates but, as the hon. Member for Telford said, the experience of walking down a street without knowing the tenure of the properties. There has been a tendency to get through the social housing obligation by putting a couple of boxes at one end of the estate and then building some nice five-bedroom houses on the rest of the estate. That approach has been adopted in some areas, but it is not satisfactory.
	Once again, the hon. Member for Cotswold has done the House a favour by tabling his new clauses, because he has allowed us to debate matters that are at the heart of the new planning system. I was worried when he said that he wanted independent examination of his drawers, but, to be more serious, the new clauses have allowed us properly to debate these matters. However, I think that new clause 19 is unnecessary and I hope that he will withdraw it. This part of the Bill is now satisfactory and does not need substantive amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is the Liberal spokesman saying that he thinks that the local plan-making process as provided in the Bill is entirely satisfactory?

Matthew Green: I would struggle to say that it is entirely satisfactory. I suspect that there are few pieces of legislation that any of us would describe as entirely satisfactory, but this part of the Bill moves in the right direction. As with any new system, it may need tinkering with later. The Government have made a good stab at trying to create a flexible and more open system.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Bill is not entirely satisfactory, may I ask him, mischievously, why he has tabled no amendments to try to improve this part of the Bill?

Matthew Green: Time will probably tell us where the deficiencies lie in the Government system, as time has told us where the deficiencies are in the 1990 Act. Given what the Government have set out, and given the slight amendments that have been made over time, I think that the Government have made a reasonable stab. I think that they have moved in the right direction in creating flexibility, local decision making and accountability, and that that will lead to some speeding up of the planning process. However, I do not follow the mantra of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that speeding up the process is the be all and end all, and that British business would suddenly flourish even more if we speeded it up so that somebody could get an application through in a week. That is a lot of nonsense. We would do the public and business a great disservice if we pretended that that could be achieved. A well-structured, efficient and flexible planning system is what local business people and others want.

John Gummer: First, I declare an interest both as an honorary officer of the Town and Country Planning Association and of the Landscape Institute, and as a chairman of a company that, among other things, gives sound planning advice, particularly of an environmental nature. Perhaps that means that I care particularly about the simplicity of the documents and measures that we are considering. I suggest that the House gives serious consideration to some of the amendments, including the one tabled by the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright), which deals with a key issue. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to ensure that the Bill takes a more integrated approach, and has used the example of the housing strategy, although it has a wider application. We must ensure that when we make planning decisions and write local plans we do so holistically. That is crucial, as that does not happen at the moment and will not do so under the Bill in its current form. The Minister will no doubt help us by saying that he will introduce regulations to achieve that end. However, I commend the amendments because the requirement for an holistic system should be included in the Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has done the House a service, both generally and specifically, in tabling his amendment. It is hard to conceive how local plans will work if the county council, which has responsibilities not only for the overarching plan but for highways, education and other concerns, is excluded from their operation. Why, then, is it wicked to remind the country that the county council is, and ought to be, a statutory consultee? I do not believe that the Minister is a bad man or has a hidden agenda, but there is an unattractive antagonism towards county councils in the way the Government talk about planning.
	In many parts of the country, the county council is an historical structure that covers an area that, for the people who live there, equates closely to the locality. Nobody in my constituency has much love for a region called East Anglia. The people of Trimley St. Mary find it hard to believe that they have much in common with the people of Rickmansworth, and I doubt whether they will be seeking a close association with Essex. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) may believe that the feeling is mutual, but it is worth making the point that the concept of the regional nature of locality is alien to many parts of the country. However, there is a commitment to the county, even when the county is in the care of the Labour party and its Liberal supporters. I am sure that those Liberal supporters will be considering why, yet again, their party wants to push up the county rate. The Liberals will be blamed, as they deserve to be, for their association with this spendthrift Government. Even when we have just suffered an 18.5 per cent. rise in council tax, we still like our county structure and believe that it is important. That ought to be reflected in the Bill.

Matthew Green: The right hon. Gentleman will know that last week the Audit Commission's report made it clear that, regardless of political control, council tax has been forced up by the council tax system, with the biggest effect resulting from the central Government grant. The report makes it clear that external forces are responsible, so I do not accept that rises are dependent on party control.

John Gummer: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening to what I was saying. In Suffolk, we have consistently asked the Liberals to stand up and say that it is the Government's fault. We have told them to stand up and attack the Government. We have told them that we do not expect them to support the Labour party any more because of the damage done to the county. However, as usual, the Liberals have sycophantically supported the Government, as they always do and always will. They are the other Labour party.

Richard Younger-Ross: rose—

John Gummer: They always rise to the bait, which is a great joy. I rarely make a speech on local government in which I do not manage to get almost every Liberal who has bothered to turn up for the debate to intervene. I have one more to tempt today, but in the meantime I shall give way to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross).

Richard Younger-Ross: How does the right hon. Gentleman answer the point that in Devon the councillors who run the county are a coalition not only of Tories and Liberal Democrats but of Labour and independent councillors? In Devon, the Tory party is tied to the Labour party as well, so what he has just said about the Liberal Democrats surely applies to his own party.

John Gummer: Not at all, because the Conservatives in Devon have made it perfectly clear that they oppose the Labour Government and want to get rid of them. They also want to get rid of the need to associate themselves with the Liberals, which must be a very unpleasant experience for them. I very much commend them on putting the county's interests above the unpleasantness of being close to the Liberals.
	I shall move on, because I have not been able to tempt the third Liberal in the Chamber to speak—I shall have to be a little more extreme to get the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) to intervene. There is a serious problem with the Bill. I wish that the Minister had been much more radical, as many things should have been covered in the Bill, including sustainability, energy saving and the way in which building regulations should develop. The Government ought to be legislating on many of those things, as they are important. The Bill is truncated, and does not include many things that we have been pressing for on an all-party basis. I am concerned that the provisions on local development plans are not wide, progressive or radical enough. I am sure that that is not the Minister's fault, and that it was his predecessor who got us into this situation. However, I wish to put down a marker for the future.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of county councils, does he not think that almost all their responsibilities, including transport, highways, archives and education have a critical bearing on the planning system? If those councils are excluded from the fundamental plan-making part of that system, I do not see how it will work.

John Gummer: My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important matter, which I have raised myself. The difficulty is that the Government may say, "Yes, that is perfectly true, but we do not need to say so." However, if it is true, it cannot do any harm to say so. There must be a reason why the Government do not want to say so, and I believe that it is their antagonism towards county councils. They do not like them because they are old. The Government have got a thing about anything that has gone on for a long time and is working. They usually stop such things working by changing them when that is not necessary, leaving us with a much worse situation—vide the House of Lords. However, we do not want to get into that now.

Sydney Chapman: I did not know why the Government did not like me very much, but now I realise that it is because I am old. In fairness to the Minister, as my right hon. Friend knows, there is reference in the Bill to sustainable development, but it is confined to clause 38. As I argued in Committee, the Bill mentions sustainable development, but it does not even define what it is. Given my right hon. Friend's vast experience as a former Secretary of State for the Environment, does he not think that sustainable development needs much greater attention in the Bill? The opening clause in the relevant part of the Bill should begin with a definition of sustainable development.

John Gummer: I need to be careful, lest you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should feel that I am straying from the amendment that we are discussing. One of my criticisms of my hon. Friend's amendment is that it does not make clear that very point. Perhaps I know why sustainable development is not defined. If they define it, the Government have to admit that so far they have spoken a great deal about it, but done little. The trouble is not that they need joined-up government. They need joined-down government: there ought to be a connection between the mouth and the action. There needs to be more done and less spoken. I hoped that the Bill and this part of the Bill would deliver so many of the things about which the Government have rightly spoken. For five or six years I have tried hard to be non-party political and bipartisan on the subject of the environment, but it is increasingly difficult to continue, because there is no delivery in that regard. Although I am sometimes less than utterly polite about Liberals, on this occasion I think they would agree that we need more action. In the context of local development plans, I should have liked to see a much greater sense of urgency about sustainable development spelled out in a way that could insist upon action.

Andrew Turner: I am wondering whether the disparity between action and words on the part of the Government in relation to the environment was due to the fact that the environment itself was mostly old.

John Gummer: I should not pursue that line too far because I know that Mr. Deputy Speaker is assiduous in ensuring that I remain in order, but I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend on that.

Matthew Green: On sustainability and new clause 19, the Government would argue that they have left the matter open so that they can deal with it through regulations because it is such a difficult subject to deal with. I understand that one of their own consultations came up with 50 different components of sustainability, including happiness. The right hon. Gentleman is right. The Government should have written some definition of sustainability into the Bill, leaving themselves the ability to add to it later through regulations, because the argument is evolving—we are at a different place now from where we were 10 years ago as regards sustainability.

John Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is right, particularly in his last point. The Prime Minister said that sustainability was at the heart of the Labour party programme. The heart of the Bill is the part that we are seeking to amend, and sustainability should be included in that. For that, it must be defined. It is better to have a poor definition that gives at least some indication than merely to use words with no definition and to tell the House that everything will be done by regulation afterwards. I shall say something in a moment about regulation, with particular reference to the new clause.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In new clause 10(3)(f), I specifically included a reference to
	"a plan detailing how land use, sustainability and economic regeneration are to be managed".
	I took out an entire subsection about that because I knew the Minister would criticise me for putting some things in and not others, so I decided to take the whole lot out. I accept my right hon. Friend's criticism. Perhaps I should have left the whole subsection, particularly paragraph (f), in new clause 19.

John Gummer: I hesitate to force such an apology from my hon. Friend. Indeed, I see the new clause as a mechanism for asking the Government to rethink in time for the discussions in another place. My hon. Friend will no doubt agree that it is difficult for the Opposition to produce such a detailed clause. I am sure the Minister will make some such comment—I have made such comments myself from the Government Benches—and I know that one should not look towards them, but the officials will glow with pleasure at the fact that the Minister has reminded the House that without their help it is difficult to proceed.
	I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will do that in the same elegant way as we have all tried to do it from time to time, but I hope he will not use that for an excuse. I hope he will undertake to look again at the fundamental concerns behind the new clause. I shall explain what I think them to be. First, as I said, one does not have the feeling that the Government have grasped the concept that the exercise should be holistic. That is where I agree with the hon. Member for Telford. Secondly, the Government have failed to define sustainability and put it at the heart of what they are trying to do in this part of the Bill.
	Thirdly, I have a problem with the approach whereby the Government intend to deal with the matter in regulations. There is a real issue about the House's control. Someone came into my constituency surgery in Woodbridge recently complaining about a particular part of a Bill. She asked how any sane collection of people could pass that clause. I looked it up and I know why. We never discussed that clause, as we did not discuss almost two thirds of that Bill, because the Government made sure that we could not do so. We had to make a choice between proper discussion of part of it and no discussion of the rest, or improper discussion—if that is the word—of the whole Bill.
	The emasculation of Parliament by procedure has been the mark of the Government. The same is true of the over-use of regulations. Of course it is true that in many cases regulations have to be made beyond the Bill, because of their detailed nature, but we do not have a satisfactory mechanism in the House for dealing with regulations. Many regulations are therefore not properly produced, and they affect the rights of the citizen. The Government should have given a much clearer indication of the nature of the regulations that they propose under this part.
	The fourth reason why I hope the Government will think again is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold made about the complexity of this part of the Bill. The Minister goes round the country talking as though this part were as simple as the amendment that has been proposed by my hon. Friend. When the Minister talks about it, he does not explain how many documents, papers and so on must all come together. He has a simplistic and rather attractive way of presenting it. Those things should be in the Bill, and not merely be his explanation of what is in the Bill. The public would never understand it if he presented what is written in the Bill. They would be caught up in terminology such as "hereinafter" and "before him", and would begin to wonder whether they were supposed to have access to the system at all.
	The Minister does not try to explain that. He explains, more or less, what my hon. Friend has proposed in his new clause. I hope the Minister will think again about his excellent speeches—not the ones that he makes in the House, but the ones that he makes in public, when he explains to ordinary people what he is trying to do—and ask himself whether he can put that into the Bill so that people will understand what it is about.
	Fifthly, I hope the Minister will take notice of the timetable issue. When I was Secretary of State, one of our difficulties was that we did not have enough powers to insist that local authorities completed their plans. Some of them, of all political parties, were unbelievably long-winded about trying to do it, not because they were so busy consulting and listening to the public, but because they were so incompetent that they never got to the point at which they could do that. It needed the use of the law to get them to do it. For that reason, I commend to the Minister the concept of timetabling. We may have got it slightly wrong—perhaps we should have given an extension in some cases and shown more flexibility in others—but does he accept that if we do not have something more akin to a timetable, he will find it difficult to get out of some local authorities the work that he needs?

Matthew Green: To elucidate the right hon. Gentleman's point about local plans, I understand that 38 local authorities still do not have their first ever local plan, let alone a revised one.

John Gummer: The hon. Gentleman underlines what I was saying; that given that I was trying to do that five years ago, I was not all that successful, and the Government have not been very successful since. If we now have a new system that supersedes the one that they have not filled in, it is doubtful whether those local authorities will ever end up producing anything at all. If the Minister were prepared to seek to do more it would be helpful.
	I was intrigued by the point made by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). I see that, rather than being tempted to intervene, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has now been forced out of the Chamber, so I am pleased that I have at least half won. The hon. Member for Ludlow referred to local authorities' ability to take a forward look at aspects that are particularly pertinent, and my local authority of Suffolk Coastal is also good at doing that. One knows where one is with Suffolk Coastal and it is prepared to be radical. I am pleased that it has given planning permission for an outstanding modern house in the countryside, totally contrary to what the Minister seeks to do, giving real jobs to architects who will do some really good work. I declare an interest, in that I serve on a committee of the Royal Institute of British Architects. That is the sort of interest that shows that one may know something about this matter, which usually excludes one from speaking in this House—but there we are. The Minister has tried to reduce and withdraw the employment of architects and builders of quality by the changes that he has already made. But one of the things that my local authority tries to do is to meet the particular needs of the area in advance so that people know where they are. I do not know South Shropshire district council, but it clearly works in the same way.
	I am all for that kind of material being applied, but the Minister should not forget the point that has been made, which was also made by the Law Society. I rarely like points made by the Law Society because they are usually wrong and are usually about protecting the interests of lawyers, which I sought not to do when I came into the House. It is important that not every bit of paper or statement should be admitted, simply because it means that there may be circumstances in which that which is simply not appropriate, applicable or right—truthful—might find itself treated as if it were on a common basis with that which was obviously necessary. There is an issue here that should be looked at.
	My last point is the one in relation which I intervened earlier. We need to enable better local consultation, and one way in which to do that is stopping otiose repetition. It is not proper consultation to have 92 different versions of the same pressure group appear one after the other before an inspector. It is not proper consultation for small groups to hijack the discussion in particular areas and to prevent the wider community from playing a proper part, and I think that both sides of the House would agree. One way to avoid that is to give greater powers to the inspector.
	I warn the Minister what his officials will do to him, because they did it to me. After a very important inquiry had finished when I was no longer in office, I criticised the length of time that it had taken and the length of the inspector's report. He asked to talk to me and he revealed that he had asked to see me as Secretary of State before he had started the inspection, and that he had wanted to say that if the job was to be done properly he wanted to do it in a particular way, at a certain speed and to produce a certain type of report. Officials not only made sure that he was not allowed to do that, but never told me that he had asked to do so.
	I warn the Minister that there is a kind of fear that he should be too implicated in these matters. Of course he must not become implicated in the sense of being unfair, but we must have a planning system where the Minister can facilitate its speed and efficacy when the law allows him to do so, but is not so detailed as to ensure that it happens automatically. Therefore, I hope that he will give himself the elbow room to make it possible for inspectors to do the job that he wants them to do, and to listen to the general public and not to be hijacked, and insist that the law be not applied in so inflexible a manner that he is not even allowed to understand the concerns of the inspector whom he has appointed. It should not happen like that, I can show that it does happen like that, and I am perfectly sure that that is still going on. Unfortunately, nothing in the Bill gives me the feeling that it may stop.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is it not curious that the Government, in the Bill and in statutory instruments on tribunals inquiries, have given themselves very much the sort of powers that my right hon. Friend adduces for major infrastructure projects, but they have not taken the same powers in this part of the Bill relating to local plans? That is a curious anomaly.

John Gummer: I am entirely in favour of what the Government have done on major infrastructure projects. That is crucial. I would have wanted them to go further, and I supported the previous proposals. That is something that the general body politic needs if Britain is to be able to make difficult major decisions. However, as my hon. Friend says, the principle should be extended to these issues. In terms of a locality, these decisions are just as important. They may not be important to the nation, but in my constituency a decision relating to whether a new park-and-ride service should be at one place rather than another, is, to the people who live nearby, just as crucial as a decision relating to terminal 5. Therefore, the system must not be hijacked by a small number of campaigners. I say that about wind farms. I would not like to embarrass the Minister, but I oppose a particular scheme in my constituency. For the people round about, such issues really matter, and he should have the powers to ensure that inspectors can do their jobs without being hijacked by small groups.
	For that reason, I hope that he will be careful in his reply, offer to take some of these points on board, and use the other House for the excellent purpose for which it exists, which is to revise. There is no shame about second thoughts; I have had them myself, and I certainly will not crow if the Minister is kind enough to take some of those points on board.

Sydney Chapman: It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). If I may spare his blushes, I have to say that, among many of the professional institutions at least, but other organisations as well, he was regarded as one of the finest Secretaries of State for the Environment, at least in relation to environmental issues. I hope that I am in no way passing any comment on those on the Government Benches in saying that, because there is now no such person as a Secretary of State for the Environment.
	I am with the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) on his amendment No. 27: I believe that adopted housing strategies are of key importance in planning any community and that they should be included in the new clause. Clause 18, which he seeks to amend, already contains 10 categories. In Committee, a bipartisan attempt was made to try to keep the number of categories to a minimum, as Members wanted to include archaeological finds and other such items. Of course, the Minister may argue that clause 18(2)(f), which deals with community strategies, could include housing strategies. He might advance the same argument about paragraph (h), which refers to
	"any other local development document which has been adopted by the authority".
	Presumably, that could include housing.
	Incidentally, if I may say so, I think that it is idiocy that this House can meet in two places at the same time. The reason I say that is that an important debate on affordable housing is being held in Westminster Hall at this very moment. This is not a point for the Minister to deal with, but I again ask the Government to reconsider the issue of this House meeting in two places at the same time.
	I should like to address one remark to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), whose interventions and performances—I say this very sincerely—I always find interesting. I am very much in favour of pre-application consultations where necessary, post-application consultations on significant applications where necessary and the undertaking of public consultation before local development plans are drawn up. I am 100 per cent. behind him on that issue, but I wish to make what I shall call a human nature observation. I have found, especially as a Member of Parliament, that the more a local planning authority consults the public, the more angry the local community will be if the authority does not seem to take its advice. That is a human nature point that must be overcome, but I think that we must recognise that it exists.

Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that another problem is that people can be consulted to death? The response to consultation can be in inverse proportion to the amount. Sometimes, people feel that a second consultation does not need the same level of response—for example when a second planning application is made broadly along the same lines as an earlier one.

Sydney Chapman: I hesitate to say this, but I cannot give definitive proof that I have yet been consulted to death. None the less, I agree with the generality of what my hon. Friend says. There must be a sensible balance, with full consultation. If there has been full consultation at an earlier stage, less will be needed at a later stage.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman speaks about consultation as though it is only the local authority that reacts to it. One of the reasons why I am keen to see a lot of pre-consultation on planning applications is that it is often the applicant who reacts to what the public have said and alters his or her application to lessen the likelihood of public opposition. One of the key elements is that the applicant responds to the consultation by listening and making changes, rather than the local authority responding by deciding whether to say yes or no.

Sydney Chapman: I agree. I am in favour of pre-application consultation, which should obviously be organised by the applicant rather than by the local authority, which would consult on significant cases after the application had been submitted.
	I am anxious to make progress. I should like to consider new clause 19, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), in a slightly different light. As I understand it, his one, albeit long, new clause seeks to replace eight clauses and parts of two other clauses. It is worth pointing out that his amendments propose the deletion of clauses 14, 16, 18 to 22 and 25, and parts of clauses 17 and 23. I am very much in favour of Bills being as simple as possible. A year ago, the Government heralded the introduction of the Bill by saying that they wanted a firmer, fairer and simpler planning system. We all say amen to that. It is not for me to argue now whether the Bill is fairer and faster—perhaps I can do so later today—but I am anxious to ensure that it is simpler.
	I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold is on to a good point with new clause 19, which would make the legislation simpler. I know perfectly well that, as the Minister will probably point out, legislation must be complicated and comprehensive to a certain extent. For example, we could decide across party divisions that it was a good thing to ban spitting on the Queen's highway on the Sabbath. However, we could not merely introduce a 13-word clause stating, "it is an offence to spit on the Queen's highway on the Sabbath". We would have to define the Queen's highway, spitting—I shall go no further on that point—and the Sabbath, which, as I understand it, represents different days to different religions. I therefore understand that, in order to attempt to cover all eventualities and any loopholes, legislation is necessarily more comprehensive and complicated than we might at first think it needs to be.
	I have not been able to compare new clause 19 with the Government's clauses, because of the time factor. Whatever professional reputation I have, although I am retired, I must cover myself by making that comment, but I ask the Minister most sincerely—he does respond to genuine points—to consider whether his clauses can be made simpler, even if he feels unable to accept new clause 19 as it is drafted.
	I should like to say how much I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) about the importance of public recognition of county councils. My constituency, which is situated in the Greater London area, used to have a county council. It now has the Greater London Authority, which I suppose is a regional council of some sort, although it can be argued that the natural region of the hub of our country, London, extends well beyond the boundaries of the Greater London area. I strongly support him in stressing the importance of county councils. If, perchance, any part of England ever has a regional council or assembly—I hope that will not happen, as such a body would be yet another tier of government—I hope that the Government will take to heart the public identification with the county council in the name that is given.
	I feel that it would be quite wrong to transfer any powers from a county council to a regional assembly unless and until that assembly was democratically elected. I shall say no more about that, as I raised the same matter in Committee, but I think that it is vital. The Minister might say, "Well, of course, the regional assemblies include nominations from county and borough councils," or whatever, but I think that that direct link with the voter who votes for the county councillor makes it essential that we do not lose sight of that important point.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend, with his enormous expertise and knowledge, agree that the bulk of knowledge that county councils have built up over decades, and in some cases centuries, has not been given enough weight in today's debate? If we are not careful, that bulk of knowledge and the very experienced strategic planning officers who are employed by county councils could be lost. That would be greatly to the detriment of the sort of county council areas that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and I represent.

Sydney Chapman: I agree. County councils are known and accepted by the public. People had great difficulty in identifying with the new councils—Avon or Humberside, as I think the latter was called—that a previous Government introduced.

John Gummer: I abolished them.

Sydney Chapman: My right hon. Friend reminds me that he abolished some of them. He deserves extra brownie points for that.

Andrew Turner: Would my hon. Friend also deliver appropriate brownie points for the restoration of Herefordshire and Rutland?

Sydney Chapman: Yes, and although I shall not be standing at the next election, I shall willingly join anybody who wants a mention of any fine piece of architecture in their constituency—although I do not suppose that any of those will have been designed by me.
	I seriously commend to the Minister the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold that instead of talking about development documents and development schemes in different parts of the Bill, we go back to the phrase that everybody knows—development plan. The development plan in operation in my local planning authority area is the unitary development plan, which consists not only of plans and maps but of statements and reports. "Development plan" is an all-embracing phrase that is accepted and understood in town and country planning.
	I also agree with my hon. Friend's wish to introduce more timetables. He said that each local planning authority should revise its plan every five years, and I would suggest a scintilla of amendment to that proposal by saying that a review should be begun five years after the plan is approved, which means that it may not be completed until a few months later. That is a trivial point, however, and I do not need to explain it further. There would then be three months for the inspector to report, although there could always be exceptions for big cases, for which the Secretary of State could suggest six months or whatever. The report should then be published within one month. I stress that idea in particular, because I know that Secretaries of State sometimes delay a report if they feel that it is politically sensitive and an election is looming—although I am sure that that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal never did that.
	I am very much in favour, as we all are, of the community participating in the planning process. In my area there are Agenda 21 forums, which could be used to gauge opinion. They do not necessarily reflect all public opinion in their communities, but it would be a good thing to use them.
	New clause 19 consolidates eight clauses and parts of two others, and I am in favour of it. Whatever Bill goes on to the statute book, while we are talking about consolidating clauses may I make a final plea to the Government—this may be my last opportunity to do so—that as the principal Act is the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 this would be a good time to have a consolidated town and country planning Act embracing all the relevant legislation that has been passed since 1990?

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman made exactly the same recommendation in favour of a consolidated planning Act in the Standing Committee, and at the time I said, as I expect he recalls, that I wholeheartedly agreed with him—so long as I was not the planning Minister who had to take it through.
	This has been a good and amiable debate, which has gone to the heart of the Government's new planning framework. I assure the House that I have listened carefully to all the arguments that have been made, although I do not suppose that I shall be able to respond wholeheartedly to them all. As usual, the debate has been sustained by what I have come to describe as the planning Bill repertory company—in which I can now include my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright), who has sat through two days of our proceedings on the Floor of the House. There was also a fleeting but welcome appearance by the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), and we have listened to an interesting contribution by a distinguished former Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I assure him that I listened to him as carefully as I avidly read his column in Estates Gazette, and as avidly as I visit his delightful constituency, which contains the nation's premier serious music venue.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) for his growing enthusiasm for our local development framework. He was absolutely right to attach such importance to the statement of community involvement and its implications. I fully acknowledge that he invented the filing cabinet metaphor. He will remember that as I am a somewhat old-fashioned chap myself, my metaphor of preference was the concertina file—but the filing cabinet image seems to have taken hold.
	The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal and the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) will have to forgive me if I do not follow them down the path of talking about the role of county councils now. It goes without saying that that matter has been well ventilated already in our proceedings, and I am reasonably confident that it will be reverted to elsewhere.
	I shall focus on the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). He promised that he would return to the subject of how local planning should work and how we should legislate for it, and as always, he has been as good as his word—or perhaps I should say twice as good, because we have not one but two new clauses to look at, and they are not even the same.
	The hon. Gentleman starts from the view that the system that we are putting in place is too complicated. Secondly, he believes that attempting to cover local planning arrangements in a single clause, however long, will make the system better and easier to understand. Thirdly, he believes that the arrangements in his new clauses—or at least, those in one of them—would lead to a better local planning system than would part 2 of the Bill. I have to reveal to him that I disagree on all three counts.
	It is the Government's contention that our new arrangements, although precise, are not complicated. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet was right to say that we believe that they will deliver simpler, clearer local planning that is faster and more flexible, and with which the community can more easily become involved.
	Describing the component parts of the system in sufficient detail means that people can be certain how it operates. Each element of our new system is there for a reason—to address the problems in the present system and to contribute to the goals of our planning reforms. The proposals of the hon. Member for Cotswold not only fail to address some of those problems, but would create some entirely new problems.
	Our proposals are perfectly straightforward. Each authority must have a core strategy, covering 10 or more years. There will be a proposals map, showing which land is to be developed and which is to be conserved. Authorities may choose to have one or more area action plans showing in more detail what will happen in areas where there will be a lot of change, or in areas that will be kept as they are.
	Those documents will be subject to independent examination. They will be known as development plan documents and, with the regional spatial strategy for the area, will form the development plan. What could be simpler than that?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The number of plans is mushrooming by the second. I picked out six in the Bill, but today I have heard from the Minister about two new ones that I have never heard of before—a proposals map and an action plan, neither of which is mentioned in the Bill, so far as I am aware. The system is getting more complicated every second. Instead of the two filing cabinets in my system, the Minister's system now has eight.

Keith Hill: As I shall seek to demonstrate, the hon. Gentleman himself has suggested no fewer than six elements in his local plan. At the core of the Government's local development framework are proposals for three development plan documents—those that I have mentioned. Of course, as we have already said, a local authority may expand the number of those documents if it chooses. They are the categories of the development plan document.
	Local planning authorities will also be able to set out more details on their main policies, or on their policies in relation to, say, accessibility or design. Those elements will be known as supplementary planning documents.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Oh no!

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman has sat through fifty-five and a half hours of this. He knows perfectly well that SPDs are proposed. They correspond to what is normal practice already. I fail to see the problem with them.
	Each local planning authority will also have a statement of community involvement, which will explain how local people and other interested parties will be able to influence, and express their views on, plans for their areas. I confess that that is new, but it is perfectly reasonable and straightforward. To make sure that those elements are put in place within a reasonable time, each area will prepare, and stick to, a project plan. That plan will set out what documents it will prepare, and a timetable for them, and it will be known as the local development scheme. That, too, is surely eminently sensible.
	Our proposals will also ensure that local planning will not suffer from the serious problems encountered under the current system. No longer will plans take far too long to put in place, and no longer will it be extremely difficult and time consuming to update them. It is worth reflecting that half the local plans compiled by the nearly 300 local planning authorities are out of date, and that 15 authorities never completed one in the first place. We intend things to be different. The plan will have to set out a clear strategy for an area's future development, and not merely list hundreds of policies that make it hard for anyone to see what development might happen where. No longer will preparing a plan be such a mammoth endeavour that residents and businesses find it too hard or too off-putting to get involved, and stay involved, in the process.

Matthew Green: Does not the scheme have another potential advantage? At the moment, local authorities preparing the mammoth documents that are local plans inevitably get involved in a public inquiry. Preparing the plan in a series of folders carries the advantage that, if one of the folders is controversial and ends up the subject of a public inquiry, the other folders will not require such an investigation. At the moment, a local plan is put to a public inquiry even though most of it is not controversial. That means that local plans are held up because of problems in one element.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman is right. A great advantage of the Government's proposed schema is that it offers the flexibility that he describes. We have already debated in Committee the possibility that the new framework would mean that, if a new site unexpectedly became available—say, after the closure of a factory—it would not be necessary to respond by initiating the complex process of disentangling the existing plan. The new framework will make it possible to look at the site and to slot it into the relevant part of what the hon. Gentleman calls his filing cabinet and what I call my concertina file.
	I admit that these are new arrangements. As with all changes, it will take time for people to become familiar with them. No one expects reading a Bill to be the best way to grasp a new system, but we have already taken action on various fronts. We have published for consultation five drafts of the key documents in local planning. They are the part 2 regulations, the transitional regulations, planning policy statement 12 on local development frameworks—that is, the policy statement that sets out the new system—a guide to procedures, and the code of practice which is aimed at helping interested parties and the person on the street to get involved in the new procedures. We have also published a guide to creating local development frameworks, which is a "how-to-do-it" guide for local authorities and others involved in preparing the new local development documents.
	Comments are welcome up to mid-January, and we will take them fully into account in preparing final versions of the documents. They will be published in an accessible fashion.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am holding the documents to which the Minister refers. My local planning officer asked me the other day how his staff were supposed to cope with getting to grips with all the documentation. His department is already overstretched, as there are not enough planning officers to deal with the present system, to say nothing of the new one. How are they supposed to deal with the new system, with an even more complicated section 106 procedure system as well?
	3.15 pm

Keith Hill: I accept that there is a resource scarcity in planning departments around the country. The Government are addressing that problem. We want to incentivise improvements in planning performance by means of our £350 million planning development grant over the next three years, £50 million of which has been disbursed already. I am very pleased that, although the grant is not ring-fenced, many local planning authorities are putting the grant money back into the planning system. Despite the scarcity of resources at local level, the latest figures show that planning performance in all categories is at its highest levels for 10 years. A problem exists, but I am delighted to say that the planning system is responding to it.
	We are engaged in preparing further guidance on the availability appraisal, the strategic environmental assessment—the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal will be interested in that—and on monitoring and indicators. We are working with a range of organisations to spread the message about the new system and to train planners in it. Those organisations include the Planning Officers Society, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the Royal Town Planning Institute, the British Urban Regeneration Association, and the Town and Country Planning Association. We are engaged in a major programme of communication and training. The aim is to develop knowledge and appreciation of the Government's new proposals, so that planners have the attitudes, skills and resources they need to practise our new spatial planning proposals effectively.
	I have attempted briefly to describe the Government's new planning framework and the planning reform agenda. However, I take seriously the Opposition's alternative proposals, and I shall focus on some of the detail.
	The task has not been easy, as I have had to study two new clauses that are similar but not identical. In light of the problems clearly experienced by the hon. Member for Cotswold in drafting the new clauses, it is slightly ironic that they are supposed to be a simpler alternative to the Government's, and easier to understand.
	Flexibility in revising the local plan is at the heart of the Government's proposals. It is not clear that the new clauses offer that. I was confused by the fact that both new clauses have a plan containing documents. It is not clear whether the local planning authority would be able to prepare or revise one document at a time—and we believe that to be of critical importance, as noted by the hon. Member for Ludlow—or whether it would have to tackle everything at once, with all the problems that we know that that causes. Both new clauses suggest that the authority would not be able to do that. That is a fatal flaw that would perpetuate the problems of the existing system.
	One might have expected that the alternative plan would be about planning policies, but I could not see what it was supposed to be about. Although there are various elements that the alternative plan must include, neither new clause says that that plan must set out the authority's spatial or land-use planning policies. As far as possible, there must be a separation between the purposes of real planning and the process by which real plans are put in place.
	Admittedly the Opposition's schema—the plan, its document and any changes that the local authority wants to make—will have to go through an independent examination. However, the plan and/or documents will include practical matters too. What these will be depends on which of the new clauses one examines. In new clause 10, the practical matters included are joint working, joint committees, the timetable, and the role that county counties and—oddly, because they are planning authorities—unitary authorities would play. In new clause 19, the list has been cut to joint committees and the role of the counties. Why subject these processes to independent examination? I simply cannot see the justification for such an onerous procedure for any changes to these matters.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold has attempted to address that point in new clause 19 by specifying that the examination would consider whether an examination was necessary. Therefore, a proposal that a county council should do something more or different would have to go to an examination, and then the inspector would carry out an examination to decide whether an examination was needed. Perhaps I have got it wrong, but that hardly seems a sensible approach. It would be a barrier to county-district co-operation and partnership. This approach, which mixes real planning with how it will be done, is also incompatible with our plan-led system in which planning applications are determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations dictate otherwise.
	The hon. Gentleman accuses the Government of complexity, but he wants every authority to have at least six separate documents or plans within the overall plan dealing with various subjects. The approach to particular planning issues under our proposals is far more sensible.
	Let us consider settlements, for example. The core strategy will set out which settlements in a local authority's area will be a focus for new development, such as housing and employment, and will take into account national policy guidance and the regional strategy. It will apply other strategic policies to different settlements, such as restrictions on the scale of growth that can take place in villages in the countryside.

John Gummer: I hope that the Minister will take this point seriously, but can we remove for ever from our planning jargon the word "settlement"? I know of nobody who lives in a settlement. People live in either a village or a town, but my county has scattered settlements. I live in one of them, but I have never said that I live in the scattered settlement of Winston. I hope that we can start using language in planning that is the language of the people and not of planners. Can we lose the obnoxious word "settlement"?

Keith Hill: As a very new Minister for Housing and Planning, I have no stake in this matter, and I am absolutely willing to examine that proposal. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman use the word "stake", but even if I do not wholly succeed, by and large, I manage to excise from my remarks the expression "stakeholder", about which I am not entirely enthusiastic. I take his point about settlements: I am sure that his own is delightful.
	The proposals map will show all the policy designations, such as green-belt or conservation areas, that apply to "settlements" in the area arising from the core strategy and other development plan documents. The map will identify where land is allocated for particular uses through development plan documents. It may also show the boundaries to those living areas to which the right hon. Gentleman takes such exception. When there are proposals for change or conservation in a settlement or part of a settlement, the authority could choose to set out the comprehensive set of policies that will apply to that area to achieve what is wanted in an area action plan.
	New clause 1(3) provides for regulations to require the authority to set out in the development plan document, or such other documents as is prescribed, the key matters relating to the policy that it is adopting on planning contributions. The hon. Member for Cotswold raised that issue. On areas of outstanding natural beauty, as I have already made clear, designations will be covered in the proposals map. National park authorities are, of course, the local planning authorities for their areas.
	The last document that the hon. Gentleman's proposals would require is one that would set out how land use sustainability and regeneration are to be managed. These issues will be central to an authority's core strategy, which must set out not only the vision and the strategic policies, but the proposals to deliver that vision. He also proposes that the plan and/or document should specify the matters on which county councils and—oddly, under new clause 10—unitary authorities would have a role. I am certain that district councils will work closely with their county councils when preparing their development plans and supplementary documents, but surely it cannot be sensible to set that out in the plans and/or documents themselves. Would the county be unable to play a role until a plan and/or document was adopted? What would happen if everyone agreed that the county was to play a role on a matter that had not been specified?
	I could make many more observations about the hon. Gentleman's proposals. However, in the relatively short time that I have before I deal with amendment No. 27, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Telford, I should perhaps say a brief word about the timetables about which several Opposition Members expressed a view. It seems to me that the hon. Member for Cotswold was revising the timetable for his proposed revisions as he went along. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal also raised this issue, and I say to him that we expect the local development scheme, which is the project plan for the emergence of the local development framework, to be in place in local planning authorities by the end of 2004. That will set the timetable for the development of the local development framework, and we expect LDFs to be in place by 2007. We shall monitor the process very carefully. I also point out that this matter is not in the possession of the Secretary of State. They will be local development schemes and project plans that set out what is to go into the LDF and what the timetable for that framework will be. That will be published locally and it will be owned by the local authority and known by local publics. To that extent, there will be a powerful compulsion on local planning authorities to develop their LDFs.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Telford for the able way in which he spoke to amendment No. 27 and for his expertise in housing policy. However, I suspect that it will come as no surprise to him to learn that I shall have to invite him not to insist on the amendment. It would require the local planning authority, in preparing local development documents, to have regard to the housing strategy that it has to prepare under section 87 of the Local Government Act 2003.
	Our planning reforms are about getting authorities to take a comprehensive and spatial approach to planning. We do that through a primary duty in clause 16(3), which says that
	"local development documents must . . . set out the authority's policies . . . relating to the development and use of land".
	That is not restricted to policies implemented through planning permissions.
	Draft PPS12 on the local development frameworks also makes it clear that under the new system local development documents should provide an agreed vision for an area signed up to by the community and interested parties. That will involve linking strategies and programmes that exist at the local level, but it will not be restricted to matters that may be implemented through the planning system.
	One of those strategies would, of course, be the housing strategy. However, the range of policies, programmes and strategies that authorities should have regard to when preparing local development documents is wide. Frankly, we believe that it would be impractical to identify and set out every one, even of those prepared by the authority itself, in the Bill. Indeed, the only strategy prepared by the local planning authority listed in the Bill is the community strategy. That is included because it is the statement of the authority's strategic vision for the area and the context for all subject-based strategies, policies and programmes.
	I doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Telford would question the importance that the Government attach to housing issues. For example, in the past year we have published the sustainable communities plan and an update to planning policy guidance note 3 on housing. A consultation on a full replacement for PPG3 finished on 31 October, and we expect to publish a final version in the summer of next year.
	Regulations made under the Bill will also strengthen the consideration of housing by requiring the authority's annual monitoring report to set out how many houses and flats have been built during the year. If I might say so to my hon. Friend, in any event the Secretary of State has power under clause 18(2)(j) to prescribe other matters that authorities ought to have regard to should it transpire, for whatever reason, that difficulties arise with that approach. While I entirely understand his desire to highlight the role of housing and the need to integrate housing in local planning, I must tell him that I believe the amendment to be unnecessary. I urge him not to press it.
	I have attempted to deal with many of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold, and the House owes him a debt of gratitude for allowing us once more to turn our attentions to the core of the Government's proposals, but I have to say that we find his new clause unnecessary and defective. I urge him to withdraw the motion.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: While I accept that my proposal is not drafted perfectly—if it was, I would be seeking a job as a parliamentary draftsman—it is sufficiently robust to show that the four pages on which eight Government clauses are printed could be consolidated in one simple new clause. We did not get a chink of light to show that the Minister is prepared to consider anything in the new clause, despite some experienced voices on the Opposition Benches pleading with him to give county councils a greater role and to give greater powers to the inspectors to enable them to control the independent hearings more judiciously and more expeditiously. On that basis, I urge my colleagues to vote in favour of the motion.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 329.

Question accordingly negatived.
	It being more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
	Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]

Keith Hill: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	We have held full and extensive debates on the Bill. I again sincerely thank both Opposition parties for the serious and responsible way in which they contributed to the proceedings. The Bill is in good shape and it is right that we now commend it to the other House, where I hope that it will receive a fair and impartial hearing from both sides.
	As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear, we have a huge agenda to deliver sustainable communities. A reformed planning system is a key part of our strategy for those communities. The challenges of sustainable development, of building sustainable communities and of dealing with the problems of providing decent and affordable homes for our people should be taken up by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
	The Government are rising to those challenges, but we can and must do better on planning. The Bill will help us to build a better planning system to help us to achieve those goals. It delivers on our commitments to introduce a simpler and more flexible plan-making system regionally and locally. Perhaps most important, effective community involvement and the achievement of sustainable development are at its heart.
	This is an important Bill and I commend it to the House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am pleased to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, in what has been a real marathon. The Bill was read the First time in the House on 1 December last year and the Second time on 17 December. After a rushed first stage in Committee, the Government went to sleep until June, when they suddenly awoke and decided to recommit the Bill, having got it wrong the first time, to Standing Committee in October. We had an inadequate number of sittings in Committee in October—eight, although we pleaded for 12 in debating the recommittal motion—and a day and a quarter on Report, followed by Third Reading now. That represents a complete manipulation of the parliamentary timetable, using the Government's guillotine procedures. It is very unsatisfactory that large chunks of the original Bill remain undebated to this day. Of course, we should have liked to have the opportunity to debate those important matters.
	The regional element of the Bill and the sidelining of county councils will only diminish the legitimacy of the planning system and increasingly distance people from the planning decision-making process. If people feel alienated from their own planning process, they will not participate in it. It will become less effective, so it will decline. Limiting the role of county councils effectively breaks up a large bank of planning knowledge that has been built up over centuries in some cases. County councils have a clearer view of a local area's needs—and a superior grasp of the important strategic detail in an area—than large regional authorities. Counties allow for accountability. Local people readily identify with them. They also have a long-standing pool of planning expertise and local knowledge.
	The local development framework—the local plan-making system, about which we had a long debate before Third Reading—will be unnecessarily complex and cause further delays in the planning system. In that debate, I identified no fewer than six types of local plan in the Bill. I was absolutely horrified when the Minister, when replying to that debate, identified a further four types of plan that are not even in the Bill: the proposals map, the action plan, the project plan and the local development scheme. No wonder plans will be implemented more quickly—there are so many of them that each must take less time to implement—but the question is whether they will all be implemented.
	My suspicion is that the local plan-making process will be so complex that huge excuses will be made not to revise the plans regularly. Surely the major lacuna in the present system is that 15 authorities have no plans at all and many others never revise them. It would have been far better to fix the present system, rather than to rip it up and implement a new system that is bound to cause delay and, at the very least, to become a lawyers' paradise.
	Other elements of the Bill are reprehensible. The idea of replacing outline planning permission—a legal process—with a statement of development principles will cause developers many problems because they will not be able to obtain finance on the basis merely of such a statement, which has no binding effect on a local authority. The Secretary of State's power is greatly strengthened in the Bill. It has almost become a planning system by diktat of the Secretary of State. This hugely centralising measure will take powers away from local people and local authorities. It will move powers upwards, rather than devolve them, which is what we sincerely advocate. Add to all that the complexity of an alternative system to the section 106 procedure, which we discussed yesterday, and I am not sure how local planning officers, who are often in scarce supply, will cope with the whole process.
	The proposal to cut the duration of consents is wrong. The principal legislation—the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—already provides flexibility on the duration of consents. Local planning authorities already have the power to grant planning consents for only three years if they wish to do so, so why make that mandatory? Developers on big developments will have a great deal of difficulty with consents of three years' duration. It often takes three years to overcome certain things, such as compulsory purchase. The Government rejected our amendments that would have ensured that the three years ran from the end of any statutory procedure in the plan-making process.
	The proposal to remove the so-called twin-tracking process is wrong. Under that system, if the local authority does not determine an application made by a developer within eight weeks, which it is supposed to do, the developer continues negotiating with the local authority but at the same time puts in an alternative application, which it takes to appeal. If the system works properly, the local planning authority is able to negotiate with the developer, the original application is passed, or sufficient reasons are given why it will never pass and the alternative proposal is withdrawn. Under the system in the Bill, however, there will be far more appeals, because local developers will have no alternative but to appeal.
	We welcome parts of the Bill—the clarification of the compulsory purchase procedures and the Crown immunity provisions—but we have grave concerns about the general resources available for planning. Many times in Committee and during debates on Report, the Minister said that the Government are already distributing part of the £350 million planning grant. The problem, however, is that it is not ring-fenced. Therefore, cash-strapped local authorities are likely to spend some of it elsewhere. In any case, I believe that a large chunk of it will go into setting up an unnecessary and unwanted regional tier of planning.
	The Bill is hugely complicated and hugely bureaucratic—that is just the regulation so far related to this Bill. By the time that we finish, my guess is that the quantity of regulations related to the Bill will be even bigger than the pile in front of me. How on earth will local planning authorities, which are already hard-pressed to deal with existing regulations, devote their energies to enforcement, which we have discussed under various amendments? I simply do not know how the planning system will cope.
	This is a bad Bill. It will cause delay and a great deal more complication in the planning system. The right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) said when he started the review of our planning process:
	"The customers"—
	you and I, Madam Deputy Speaker, and everybody who uses planning departments—
	"have a right to an efficient and user-friendly service. Business, in particular, needs to know that their planning applications will be dealt with efficiently and predictably. Time delays caused by bureaucracy, lack of skilled staff or over-complex systems are bad for business and do little good for anyone else. Delays in receiving a planning decision can mean loss of competitiveness for business, something that we simply cannot afford in the modern global economy."
	I agree wholeheartedly with every word of that. The trouble is that it is completely hollow, because the Bill will be completely contrary to everything in that paragraph. We will see, but I bet the Minister—he has been unfortunate enough to be cast in the role of trying to sort out this mess; it is Hill's Bill and it will be a testimonial to him—that there will be at least one and probably several planning revision Bills in the next five years to sort out the mess that he has created. On that basis, I will urge my colleagues to vote against this bad and over-complex Bill.

Matthew Green: May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on his shortest contribution so far in all the stages of our consideration of this Bill? I sometimes wonder whether the reason the Conservatives are always antagonistic towards programmed Bills is that they work on the principle, "Why make a five-minute speech when a 25-minute speech will do?"
	We welcome much that is in the Bill, as the Minister and Members who have followed this debate will know. We broadly welcome the new planning system at the heart of the Bill, with the local development schemes and local development documents. It should lead to a more flexible, open and accountable system, which should result in fewer appeals to the Secretary of State, fewer public inquiries, more public contentment—happiness is probably too strong a word—with the planning process, and, therefore, a speedier process. I therefore want to put on record that the idea that moving to an entirely managerial process—of which we hear more from the Chancellor than from the Minister—will solve the nation's economic problems is far-fetched. The reality is that it will take some time for a proper and effective planning system to work, but it does not have to take the amount of time that it sometimes does at the moment.

John Redwood: Given the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the new regional-plan-led system, will the Liberal Democrats support all the extra houses that the Secretary of State will want to visit on the green fields of many beautiful places in England?

Matthew Green: Had the right hon. Gentleman deigned to participate in any of the Bill's stages before Third Reading, he would have anticipated that I would address some of the Bill's problems, including the regional elements, and explain why we shall vote against it.
	There are other aspects of the Bill that we like. It contains a provision on sustainable development, although we would have liked it to include a definition of that. We hope that the regulations will be effective. At least there is now the intention for sustainability to form part of the planning process. Although the clauses that concern Wales have not found universal approval, no one can find any reason to object to them and the Welsh seem happy with them, so that is good enough for me. The local development orders represent a step forward and the Bill's provisions on Crown immunity are long overdue. Although I am worried that the section 106 reforms might have perverse consequences for affordable housing—I am sure that the Minister will work to try to prevent that—the changes are broadly welcome, as are the Bill's compulsory purchase provisions.
	We have some worries about the Bill, though. We did not discuss the simplified planning zones—or "Gordon's planning zones", as I call them—at length in Committee. I think that the provisions are in the Bill only because the zones were mentioned in last year's Budget. If the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister were honest, I am sure that it would rather that the provisions were not in the Bill because broadly similar provisions exist, although no one—including developers—uses them or is enthusiastic about them. Developers and businesses often prefer a structured process to a simplified one. When development takes place, people want to ensure that there is some control on what happens next door. I suspect that the Bill's provisions on such zones will not be used.
	We are also worried about the introduction of statements of development principles. The Government rightly had to row back from abolishing outline planning permission because of the question of land banks and their value. There is a danger that the statements of development principles will become rapidly discredited because they will be relatively worthless. It would be good if the shift from outline planning permission to statements of development principles could be achieved, because the statements would allow planners to detail what they would like to see on a site, rather than using a reactive system in which they must wait for applications to come forward. However, it will be difficult to make that transition and given that the Government are rightly allowing outline planning permission to continue, the statements of development principles will be fairly worthless.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I thought that the hon. Gentleman said that the Government had to row back on the abolition of outline planning permission, but I understand that that is not the case. A provision to abolish outline planning permission remains in the Bill and the Minister in Committee said that such planning permission would be abolished once the Government had decided that statements of development principles were working properly.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is right that the Bill still contains such a provision. The Government have rowed back because the Bill originally provided that if a development was covered by a statement of development principles, outline planning permission could not be issued. They have removed that provision and left the situation for outline planning permission unchanged. The Bill does include a provision to abolish such permission, but the Minister will never be able to use it because he will find that statements of development principles will unfortunately be discredited and considered to be worthless. It will be potential objectors or people with a third-party interest who will apply for them, rather than developers, who will continue to opt for outline planning permission.
	Those are the technical details. There is one fundamental reason why we will not support the Bill. The regional element means that powers are transferred from elected county councils and elected principal local authorities up to a regional tier. That would be acceptable if elected regional assemblies were in place. Regional planning can make a great deal of sense, especially for transport, which is difficult to organise at a local level. However, in many cases power will be transferred before elected regional assemblies exist. In some cases, it will be at least a decade before those assemblies are established, because the Government will not win referendums in the south-east and south-west unless they review the regional boundaries. The powers will go to the regional planning bodies, which are accountable to no one except the Secretary of State, who appoints them.
	The transfer of powers from elected to unelected bodies is unacceptable. That is a strong enough reason to vote against the Bill, regardless of its good aspects. A compromise is possible. As I made clear in Committee, and as I have told the Minister at other times, if the county councils or principal local authorities have a power of veto over the new regional spatial strategy, the elected county councillors could indirectly hold the regional planning body to account and it would be forced to take note of their views. That would be a step forward, which might go some way to allaying some of the concerns raised.
	As I have said before, the Minister has the numbers on his side in this place, but he does not in the other place, which will be greatly concerned by issues such as the transfer of powers. If he wants the good parts of the Bill to survive, he needs to find a way around the problem. I cannot foresee circumstances in which the other place will accept that proposal in its current form.
	Overall, there is much in the Bill to welcome, but the fundamental problem remains. I am surprised that the Minister has signed up to it, because I should not have thought that he would want to sign up too often to allowing power to be taken upwards, away from elected people to unelected people. For that reason, I too shall urge my colleagues to vote against the Bill.

Sydney Chapman: I want to pick the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) up on one thing. He complained about the length of the performances of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). They were as long as they were because my hon. Friend allowed Members on both sides of the House to intervene to raise specific points, which, ultimately, saved time. The hon. Gentleman spoke for longer than he intended because he accepted an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).
	My main point is that here we are again, involved in a rushed and shortened Third Reading of an important Bill, with not enough time to consider it on Report. The Government amendments went through on the nod and the same thing happened in Committee.

David Wright: I have one point to make. As I said on Report, the Government could have crashed the Bill through Parliament in the last Session. Instead, they took time to consider its contents and to carry it over into this Session. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it could have been crashed through with a large parliamentary majority?

Sydney Chapman: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point in my own time, because I wish to raise that specific matter.
	The purpose of the Bill is to speed up the planning system—that is the summary in the explanatory notes. I accept that the Government would say that they want to "speed up the planning system while ensuring that it becomes fairer or remains as fair, and is as simple as possible."
	Of course I welcome parts of the Bill, as the hon. Member for Ludlow has, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). If we could speed up the handling of major infrastructure projects, that would be a good thing. The devil is in the detail, and we must look into that. There is a good case for simplified planning zones, except perhaps for people who live in the affected areas, who may not think that a simplified system is necessarily the best way forward.
	On reforms relating to the handling of planning applications, I do not think that the process will become quicker and more efficient, except possibly in the simplified planning zones. The regulations have been made more and unnecessarily complicated.
	I am sorry that the Minister resisted the timetable proposals for drawing up development plans and for the inspector examining them and publishing the reports. Like the hon. Member for Ludlow, I feel strongly that there should be no question of transferring any powers from county councils to regional assemblies unless and until those assemblies are directly elected. That is not an unreasonable point to make. Even at this late stage, I ask the Minister to think again. I am against the strategy of regional assemblies. In the whole planning system, I think that outline planning applications serve a useful purpose and in many instances save time and money.
	Let me deal with the remarks of the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright). The Government introduced the first Bill, if I may call it that. We had a Second Reading almost a year ago and the Bill was rushed through Committee in January. The Government said that they rushed it through because they needed to get it on to the statute book quickly—those are their words, not mine. We then waited expectantly for no fewer than six months before the Government decided to recommit the Bill. That was unique in my experience in this place. The Government then added substantial new clauses.
	The Bill now returns to the Chamber, having gone through a special procedure and having been carried forward into a new Session, and the Government have added more new clauses to the revised Bill.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman made many sensible contributions in both Committees. He will recall that in Committee in January the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) made several hundred references to Heathrow airport and terminal 5—every clause seemed to have an issue to do with Heathrow and terminal 5. Some account should be taken of the fact that time may have been wasted during some sittings of the Committee.

Sydney Chapman: I cannot speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire); I can only say that if my constituency included Heathrow or was adjacent to it, I would raise the issue of terminal 5 as many times as I could. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that we are here to defend our constituents' interests at all times within what we believe to be the national priority.
	Instead of rushing the Bill through now, and given what the Minister has said about the planning contribution proposals, it would have been far better to have delayed the Bill until perhaps next year, when the consultation period will have finished and the Minister will have had time to reflect on the public view on many of the issues that we have been discussing.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Government claim that their timetable has not rushed the Bill and that all the major parts of it have been discussed. Clause 44, to which my hon. Friend has referred, deals with major infrastructure projects. It is a highly complex clause covering five and a bit pages. It was never discussed in either Committee. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a disgrace?

Sydney Chapman: I do indeed, and I entirely accept the point that my hon. Friend makes. I have been trying to make the point, perhaps with a little resistance from Liberal Democrat and Labour Members, that far too little time has been devoted to those important issues.
	Whatever the time constraints, which may not be the Minister's fault, I want to try to finish on a bipartisan note and congratulate him, the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and, indeed, the hon. Member for Ludlow on dealing valiantly with some big issues in a relatively short time. Finally, may I make a plea to the Minister for Housing and Planning about a matter that applies more to this Bill than perhaps to any other with which I have been involved in the Commons? It is essential that there is sufficient time to deal with these matters in the other place. Planning is not a party political issue, and it is a priority to get the best possible legislation on to the statute book. I hope that the Minister and the Government will think for a long time about, and consider sympathetically, any amendments that may be made in the other place.

John Redwood: I share the worries of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) about the lack of time for debate. My objections to the Bill are fundamental, which is why I wish to make them on Third Reading. I was given guidance earlier that time was limited on Report and that the Government kept rewriting the Bill in Committee, so it was a good idea to wait and see what the final outcome was. However, now that I have seen that outcome, I am afraid that the Bill is little better than it was originally and the big problems that were apparent when it was introduced remain. I have declared my interests in the Register.
	The first objection that my constituents and I have to the Bill concerns the phenomenal powers that it gives the Secretary of State. Secretaries of State have traditionally had substantial powers, which are often vexatious for constituencies and councils, including those in my area, because they are usually used to encourage more development than is desirable for the local community or can be easily accommodated, given the inadequacies of investment in transport, health and education. The Bill will make that problem far worse, as it gives the Secretary of State phenomenal powers to drive through major infrastructure projects and his own housing targets as part of the regional spatial strategy. It will cause endless disagreements and difficulties with elected councils and communities, which will be angry when the Secretary of State flexes his muscles and uses those powers.
	I am suspicious about the delay that will be caused by throwing the existing planning system into the air and having to build a new one at considerable expense. Undoubtedly, the Secretary of State will then panic about the delay preventing the development that he would like. That, I fear, is likely to mean that the present Secretary of State or a future one will want to increase the targets even further, whatever the wishes of reluctant communities, as there will be another shortfall in housing provision, as assessed by him, caused by the uncertainties of the new planning system.
	Good points have already been made in our short debate about the lack of democratic accountability of the new regional planning bodies. Like my hon. Friends, I do not welcome regional government of any kind in England, and certainly do not want it to affect my constituency—that is also the majority view of my constituents. Regional government is a waste of money, and it is offensive when it is designed, as it is in the Bill, deliberately to override the wishes of local communities as expressed through their elected unitary authorities or county or district councils. What is the point of all the costs and expenses of elections, planning officers and councillors in our areas if they will simply have to dance to the Secretary of State's tune on all the major issues that matter to those local communities?
	I am sure that the Secretary of State has one good intention, and would like more development on brownfield sites. But we know that in practice the regional spatial strategy will be used to demand development across the piece, including development on the large number of green fields that remain in constituencies beyond the main metropolitan areas.
	We also know that the Government's transport shambles continues apace, and that there are no plans now or on the horizon for increasing rail or road capacity to serve the large new housing areas that will undoubtedly emerge from the regional spatial strategies. Once again, the Government have produced a solution to the problem that will not work. Once again, that shows their inability to indulge in joined-up government. The Department for Transport is stumbling well behind the pace, with no ability to provide the links that are needed, and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which is responsible for planning, is worried that it is not driving enough housing through in areas with green fields, so it has invented a new planning system that will allow it to do that, making the transport and other infrastructure problems far worse.
	My constituents in Wokingham and I have a heavy heart about the legislation being driven through this afternoon. We hope that in another place wiser counsel will prevail. Regional government in England is unnatural and a waste of money. Regional government directed by a Secretary of State who is out of touch and sympathy with many of our constituents is an abomination to us democratically, and it leads us to wonder why we go to the expense and trouble of building and electing local authorities when they are to be treated in such a cavalier fashion. I hope that in the other place those wiser counsels will force Ministers to think again. If they mean what they say about devolving power to local communities and acting democratically, they should tear up a large chunk of the Bill.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 178.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Anthony Steen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your advice on the problems of the postal service to and from the House of Commons using franked House of Commons envelopes, and the disadvantageous effect on constituents? I had an advice centre session lasting from 10 o'clock to 6 o'clock on Saturday, and I did a tape, with which I travelled 25 miles to Totnes to catch the midday post on Sunday. The franked House of Commons envelope has still not arrived. There were some important cases and serious issues on that tape, and the Post Office has completely failed to deliver the mail. Is there anything you can do to ensure that House of Commons envelopes get priority when posted from constituencies to the House of Commons?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The House authorities will have heard the hon. Gentleman's comments, and no doubt they will make any report if necessary.

Fisheries

[Relevant document: European Commission Document COM (2003) 746 Final: Commission proposals for 2004 TACS and Quotas.]
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]

Ben Bradshaw: I am pleased that it has proved possible to arrange this annual debate at the most appropriate time. The European Commission published its key proposals for the management of fisheries in 2004 late last week, on 4 December. The Council of Ministers is to meet from 17 to 19 December to reach its decisions on them, so today presents an opportunity, which I welcome, for us to debate the important issues that are to be addressed.
	I hope that it will be helpful if I start by sketching out the state of our progress on the recovery of fish stocks, and then what the Commission proposes. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will be aware of the hard decisions that the Council of Ministers had to take this time last year. The scientific advice on a number of key fish stocks had emphasised the need to act urgently to avert the risk of collapse, and for some stocks, the closure of fisheries was recommended. The scientists also stressed that setting total allowable catches—TACS—alone was not an adequate means of addressing the depletion of stocks in mixed fisheries. More direct measures to curtail fishing effort were essential as well.

John Redwood: Why cannot the EU understand that abolishing the discard policy and stopping industrial fishing would solve the problem in the North sea? Will the Minister put that case strongly, and win it for Britain?

Ben Bradshaw: The right hon. Gentleman does not speak with great authority on these matters. There is a problem with discards, which the European Commission is addressing already. The right hon. Gentleman is clearly not aware of that. However, discards are only part of the problem. As the Norwegians have discovered to their cost, abolishing industrial fishing and banning discards will not solve the problems.
	In response to that advice, the Council of Ministers in December 2002—

Alex Salmond: Will the Minister give way?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, as the hon. Gentleman speaks with more knowledge on these matters.

Alex Salmond: I have a specific and important question. Mr. John Rutherford is the chief executive of the Sea Fish Industry Authority. He was able to tell the all-party fisheries group a few hours ago that the results of the authority's survey in the North sea showed that cod by-catch in pursuit of the haddock stock was less than 3 per cent. Will the Minister take that vital information to next week's talks, and get for our fishermen the bumper stock of haddock to which they are entitled? That would be instead of the derisory quota that they are being offered by the European Commission.

Ben Bradshaw: Yes. I shall be happy to take with me that extremely useful piece of information from the all-party fisheries group. The hon. Gentleman is right: we must do whatever we can to separate the measures that may have to be taken to protect cod stocks from opportunities to continue to fish varieties such as haddock, whose stock levels are healthy.
	In response to the advice last year, the Council of Ministers set out to find the right balance between ensuring the recovery of depleted stocks and maximising the availability of continued fishing opportunities. The package agreed for 2003 included two basic elements. First, there was a one-year regime setting maximum permitted days fishing per month by vessels having an impact on cod in the North sea and the west of Scotland. Different monthly allowances of days were set according to gear type. This measure was designed to reduce the fishing effort on cod by 65 per cent.
	Secondly, a set of TACs was established for commercially exploited species, specifically set—in the case of recovery stocks and the stocks associated with them—to equate to the 65 per cent. reduction in fishing effort.

Eric Forth: I do not understand.

Ben Bradshaw: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand because he knows little about fisheries.

Anthony Steen: The Minister wants authoritative contributions, so would it not be helpful to UK fishermen—especially those in Brixham—if we got out of the common fisheries policy? That would mean that fewer boats would be chasing the available fish. We could then get rid of the discard policy and have a much happier industry. Why has not the Minister approached that matter in the constructive way adopted by authoritative people who have been saying the same things for 20 years?

Ben Bradshaw: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with the policy of those on the Opposition Front Bench. I suspect that he does not, but I am prepared to answer his question. The smiling contours of his face suggest that he does not agree with his Front-Bench colleagues, and that he agrees with other, sensible Conservative Members—that the Opposition policy of withdrawal from the CFP would be an absolute disaster, not least for the fishermen of Brixham. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] I shall deal with that later in my speech.
	For the UK, an absolutely key issue was that there be fairness in the number of days at sea per month that our fishermen would receive. The Commission's original proposal for the figures in what is now known as annexe XVII would have given our key whitefish trawl fleet a mere seven days per month. The outcome negotiated by my predecessor, who is now the Minister for the Environment, and his Scottish colleague, Ross Finnie, was 15 days.
	To complete the background, I need to mention just a few subsequent developments during this past year. Aid amounting to £60 million has been made available by fisheries Departments in the UK. This was mainly for decommissioning, as an adjunct to the days-at-sea restrictions. In April, various adjustments were made to the days-at-sea rules to reflect practical points, many of them identified by UK fishermen in their discussions with us. In May, the Commission issued its proposals for a longer-term recovery plan for cod. This reflects the Commission's view that the current regime, which allocates days according to gear type, is essentially an interim measure.
	The Commission's longer-term proposal would allocate a quantity of kilowatt days of fishing effort to each member state according to its fleet's historical fishing record and it would leave it to each member state to decide how to allocate these days among its fishing vessels. The recovery plan would also contain harvest control rules that would commit the Council to reacting in a prescribed way each year in response to the annual scientific advice on the state of the stock. The prescription's basic aim would be to increase the biomass by 30 per cent. each year until recovery was achieved. A parallel proposal from the Commission is on the table for a hake recovery plan.
	That brings us to the latest developments, which are this year's scientific advice and the Commission's proposals that are based on it. The scientific advice reports some small improvements in the state of the cod stocks in the Irish sea and North sea. We can draw just a little encouragement from that, but we need to see greater signs of improvement sustained over a longer period before the scientists will be able to conclude that the recovery plans are working.

Joan Humble: Not only the scientists but the fishermen recognise that cod stocks in the Irish sea have improved and are improving. However, it is utterly bewildering to the fishermen of Fleetwood that, although they are seeing a small increase in the amount of cod that they can catch, they have been told that they will have to reduce substantially the amount of plaice that they can catch given that plaice is the only species in the Irish sea that is designated as being within its safe biomass.

Ben Bradshaw: My hon. Friend may be putting her finger on one of the problems of setting TACs and quotas in a mixed fishery where cod, which is an endangered species, may be caught as a by-catch. I shall come to that point a little later in my remarks.
	In any case, there is a high degree of uncertainty in the assessment because the catch data are not entirely reliable. The basic message drawn by the Commission from the advice is that we do not need to change our aim of achieving a 65 per cent. reduction in effort compared with 2002, but that, on the other hand, we need to make sure that we actually achieve that reduction.
	Unfortunately, though, the scientific advice indicates that some further stocks are in need of recovery action. Plaice in the North sea and sole in the western channel are examples that are of direct concern to the United Kingdom. An important new feature of the advice this year is that it recommends a fishery-based approach to management on the grounds that single species management does not adequately reflect the complexity of mixed fisheries in which stocks are caught together. Therefore, the recommendations for each management zone now aim to take account of the need to reduce effort not only on the stocks that are outside safe biological limits, but on the associated stocks that involve a by-catch of the recovery stock concerned.
	That brings me to the issues that will be before us next week at the December Council. The first is the TACs and quotas for 2004. They are the main features of the voluminous Commission proposal—document No. 15388/03—that was issued on 4 December. The Commission has, of course, aimed to reflect the scientific advice and the commitments made at the Council last year to reduce the effort that impacts on depleted stocks. It would be entirely absurd of me to try and convey to the House the full list of proposals, but I will note one or two key features.
	For cod in the North sea, Irish sea and west of Scotland and stocks associated with it, the proposals are generally for roll-overs of last year's TACs, for minimal increases or for further reductions. There is also a proposal for a closed area west of Scotland. Around the fishing grounds of interest to the UK, there are proposals for TAC reductions for stocks newly shown to be in decline. There are, on the other hand, some more positive features—for example, an increase in the North sea nephrops TAC, an increase in the western anglerfish TAC, which confirms what we found and fought for successfully in 2003, and a higher TAC for North sea herring. We are currently studying these proposals carefully and will, of course, be discussing them with the industry.

Bob Blizzard: My hon. Friend mentioned an increase in the TAC for herring. As he will know, there is now an abundance of herring in the North sea whereas a few decades ago we thought that the species had become extinct. That shows that stocks can recover. However, the difficulty inshore fishermen in my area face is that there is no market for herring. They could catch herring and make a good living from that if there were a market. Will he do what he can to stimulate such a market? Would that not also have a conservation benefit, given that I am told that, with demersal species depleted, an abundance of pelagic species can be an obstacle to the recovery of those demersal species?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, certainly. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would love there to be a much more buoyant market for herring in the United Kingdom and I would recommend herring to any Member present. Herring roe is probably the most delicious roe from any fish and I eat it regularly. There is a healthy export market for herring and herring products. Indeed, some of our pelagic boats, which fish herring successfully, export a great deal to central and eastern European countries that traditionally consume a lot more herring than we do.
	My hon. Friend is also right in his point about the successful recovery plan and this is a good example in respect of stocks that were in serious jeopardy. All the pelagic stocks—not just herring, but mackerel and bass—are doing very well indeed. They present good fishing opportunities to our industry and he is right to draw attention to the fact that although we have faced serious difficulties in the white fish sector for many years with declining cod, other bits of the industry, such as pelagics, shellfish and prawns, have been doing extremely well.

Andrew George: rose—

Alan Beith: rose—

Ben Bradshaw: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), if I may.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. How sound is the science on which the recommendations are being made by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and the quotas proposed? Last year, it was clear that the quota for angler fish—monkfish—in area VII was so unsound that fishermen discovered, and persuaded the scientists, that the stock was a great deal more healthy than previously indicated. No doubt that will be the same in the North sea. On what precautionary basis are the quotas proposed and the science based?

Ben Bradshaw: It would be true to say that marine biologists who work in the field are naturally cautious. That is their job. They see it as their interest to preserve and conserve stocks and to ensure that stocks are not depleted to the extent that they become non-renewable, as it were. However, I do not think that there is any doubt about the state of cod stocks. The nature of fish stocks is that they fluctuate dramatically from one year to the next if there is a good recruitment year, as there was with haddock four years ago. One good recruitment year can completely transform the situation for haddock stocks, as it has. Fish move around, so there may have been a prediction on angler fish in the south-west made on good science, which changed quickly because of movement or because of a single good recruitment year.
	We have come quite a long way in improving how the industry works with the science, although there are still some in the industry who do not accept it. I always say to those in the industry and to those in this place who make a habit of saying that they do not believe the science that they should go off and commission science of their own and have it peer reviewed. I would be interested to see it.

Alan Beith: I thank the Minister for giving way. To return to the point about herring, which he discussed with the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), surely the key to the herring market is processing, whether it involves Craster kippers or smoked herring. What we have seen in the herring market could happen again with cod, because if the processing and marketing mechanisms collapse, as they nearly did during a period when fishing was restrained, and we are unable to ensure the processing industry's survival, when the fish return there will be no market for them.

Ben Bradshaw: Forgive me for forgetting that kippers are another delicious way to consume herring. The right hon. Gentleman is right to a certain extent, but he should not necessarily equate the success of the processing industry with UK-caught fish. There are successful processing industries, not least in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), that rely largely on imported white fish from areas of the world with healthier stocks. So, a successful processing industry, which we have—it is important to recognise that fact—does not necessarily depend on domestic stocks. However, that does not mean that we should not do what we can to protect and encourage the growth of those stocks.

Michael Weir: I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he accept that what he says about processing is true for large-scale processors, but that there is a serious problem for small-scale processors who rely on locally caught fish? Many, such as those in my constituency, are suffering because they cannot get such fish.

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, I accept that, but the answer is to ensure that we have credible policies in force to protect the fish stocks and secure sustainable and profitable fisheries for the future. Taking risks with the stocks would put the processors as well as the fishermen out of business.

Ian Paisley: The Minister has told the House that people who disagree with the scientists in Europe should get scientists of their own to examine the issue. Is he not aware that that has been done in Northern Ireland? The fishermen have consulted other scientists, who backed up those fishermen. A meeting was held in Brussels on 28 and 29 October, at which it was put to the Fisheries Committee that some scientists disagreed strongly with the recommendations from Europe.

Ben Bradshaw: I am aware of dissident scientists and dissident science—[Interruption.] I recall people standing up in the House about 10 years ago proclaiming, on the basis of what dissident scientists said, that there was no such thing as AIDS in Africa. All I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that he and others who challenge the orthodox science should commission some research and have it peer reviewed. The simple fact is that it has never been done.

Alex Salmond: I speak as a dissident MP and ask the Minister to reconsider his point about monkfish. The monkfish quota is not based on empirical evidence of the number of monkfish, but on landing data. Clearly, if the quota is reduced, so are the landings and the quota is then reduced for the next year. It is a circular argument. Given the Minister's experience of the monkfish quota elsewhere, will he now look with a more sceptical eye at the monkfish quota being set for the North sea?

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman is wrong because the scientists take landings as well as studies of biomass and ocean research into account. It is simply wrong to imply that they do not take any notice of landings. They do, and they even take into account the fact that actual landings are in some cases higher than they should be.

Alex Salmond: Will the Minister give way?

Ben Bradshaw: I want to make some progress.

Richard Bacon: Give way.

Ben Bradshaw: I have been generous in giving way. Does the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) want to say something about fisheries?

Richard Bacon: I was merely pointing out that, if the Minister gave way to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), he might learn something.

Ben Bradshaw: I have already given way to him three times—[Interruption.]—all right, twice, but perhaps I will give him another go in a minute.
	As I have already said in response to interventions, we shall be looking for ways of decoupling the associated stocks from cod, so that our fleet can take advantage of fishing opportunities that exist, but which are contraindicated because of a link with cod. That involves identifying more closely the extent of the association with cod, and finding ways—technical or geographical—to ensure that the associated species can be caught without undue damage to cod. More widely, I am aware that some of the total allowable catch reductions proposed will have serious effects on local communities, and we will be checking the scientific justification for all the proposals and arguing that any agreed to be excessive should be reined back. We will take close account of the industry's view in preparing our position.
	The process of setting TACs on an annual basis has been criticised as too short-term an approach. One of the achievements of the reform of the common fisheries policy last year was that we now have a new tool for setting the policy for TAC levels over a longer period. We welcome that new mechanism, which can be useful as part of managing recovery plans for the most depleted species. The proposal that I mentioned earlier for a long-term recovery plan for cod is the second major item that will be before the Council next week. We support its approach for adjusting the cod TACs year by year in the light of scientific advice. It would provide greater assurance as to future TACs and would provide the industry with a clearer view of how policy on quota levels responds to changes in fish stocks.
	We agree with the view that for some areas recovery plans based on TACs and technical conservation alone may not be sufficient to restore the most depleted stocks. It is important that fishing effort is not too high, and in some cases it can be necessary to tackle fishing effort directly, by limiting the amount of time that vessels can spend at sea. We therefore agree with the development of long-term recovery plans for cod and hake, and we will want to develop a suitable long-term mechanism for restraining fishing effort to restore the cod stocks.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister will be aware that the working document for annexe V—the proposal on days at sea that will replace annexe XVII—makes the interesting suggestion that it should be possible to allow 22 days a month to fishing boats that limit their effort on cod to less than 5 per cent., as opposed to the 15 days they currently have. The difficulty is that the proposal is not open to boats with a track record for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 of more than 5 per cent. on cod. Will the Minister consider removing that restriction, and does he agree that it would be the most significant incentive to minimising cod by-catch from an increased haddock quota?

Ben Bradshaw: I shall certainly look at that. The hon. Gentleman is right. We need to do whatever we can to try to decouple cod from other healthy stocks and to encourage a reduction of the cod by-catch in the fisheries to which he referred.

Bob Spink: Is the Minister aware that the balance between vessel viability and control of fishing effort is delicate, especially for the inshore fleet, which is not responsible for the mass depletion of fishing stocks? Will he make an exception for small inshore fleets such as that at Leigh and Canvey Island, so that they can remain viable?

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the need to protect the interests of our inshore fleet, which was one of the successes of the reform that we achieved at last year's Fisheries Council. We did protect those interests, contrary to the predictions of several hon. Members, including some Conservative Members.
	We also support the element of the proposal that would allocate a total amount of fishing time to each member state, enabling the member state itself to decide how to allocate that total among its fleet. That flexibility would enable us to allocate fishing time in the way most appropriate to our own national needs. It would, however, take some time to work out, in consultation with the fishing industry, how to apply those arrangements in this country. We agree with the Commission that it would not be practicable to introduce the scheme at the beginning of next year. If the Council can agree on how fishing effort should be controlled, we would look to introduce the scheme in perhaps a year's time.
	We already have limits on fishing effort in the North sea and the west of Scotland, which should continue next year. The Commission has proposed an extension of the current scheme. The formal proposal for the extension is the fifth annexe to the TAC and quota regulation, so we would have to get used to remembering that the scheme that we currently call annexe XVII would from next year be called annexe V.
	There need to be some changes to the form of the scheme. Annexe XVII was negotiated very quickly, and experience has shown that there is room for improvement. We want the scheme to be adjusted so that it can achieve the objectives that the Council set for it a year ago. Several aspects have made it difficult to operate as effectively as is necessary. I hope that we can make changes that will ensure that the limits on time at sea are fully observed. I hope, too, that we can minimise the amount of bureaucracy. We appreciate that the number of days permitted for vessels targeting cod is an important priority for the fishing industry, and we want to retain the current amount of fishing time for those boats next year.

Bob Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend agree that the various schemes, such as TACs, stand any chance of succeeding only if they are adhered to? As he said earlier, there is a large discrepancy between what is supposed to be landed and what is landed. What is his estimate of the degree of misreporting and underreporting that exists in this country and throughout the European Union?

Ben Bradshaw: The fact that it is unreported makes it difficult to put an exact figure on it, but it is serious. Otherwise, the European Commission would not have singled out the UK and Spain for strong criticism of our enforcement. My hon. Friend may await with expectation the report from the Prime Minister's strategy unit, which is expected in January and which has looked closely at enforcement. My hon. Friend is right, however: none of that will be any good unless we can be satisfied and confident that our enforcement procedures work, and I was just about to set out exactly what we propose to do about enforcement.

Robert Smith: Will the Minister clarify the Government's stance in the negotiations on the allocation of days at sea between countries? Will he press for the baseline to be the 2001 fleet, given that since then we have made considerable efforts to decommission our fleet while other countries have been using EU money to build up their fleets? A fairer allocation would be made using 2001.

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman anticipates the next sentence of my speech: I was about to say exactly that. The UK decommissioned substantial amounts of capacity in 2001 and this year, and we must ensure that we obtain full credit for that cut when the days permitted for fishing are calculated.

Michael Weir: The Minister mentioned annexe V of the new regulations. Is he aware that it includes a two-net rule that would affect fishermen who fish for white fish and nephrops? They use a different-sized net for each species, and as the regulation proposes that they may change their nets only once every three months, it would effectively destroy that fishery, which is extremely important in many small ports in Scotland, such as Arbroath in my constituency. If the Minister is involved in negotiations on annexe V, will he ensure that the two-net rule is amended to allow individual nations to impose their own time limit for the swap-over period?

Ben Bradshaw: I shall certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's comments in mind, but I hope that he will join me in welcoming the fact that there has been a slight increase in the recommendation for the TACs for prawns—nephrops—and that we must do as much as we can to exploit those opportunities without taking cod as a by-catch or in any other form.

Alan Reid: The Minister referred to the Commission's proposal for an increased nephrops quota, but he will be aware that it applies only to the North sea. There is no proposal from the Commission for an increase in TACs in the west of Scotland, where nephrops stocks are abundant. Given the abundance of the stocks and the fact that since the baseline precautionary TAC was introduced the area over which nephrops were fished has extended and the TAC has not been increased to take that into account, will the Minister go back to the Commission and try to negotiate a modest increase—say, 10 per cent.—in the TAC for nephrops in the west of Scotland?

Ben Bradshaw: I am happy to examine the case made by the hon. Gentleman, but without considering the detail I cannot give him the commitment he seeks.
	No debate on TACs and quotas and the conservation of fish stocks would be complete without reference to enforcement. This year, enforcement is of added significance because fisheries scientists have repeatedly referred to stock assessment work being compromised by the lack of reliable data on landings, while the industry has repeatedly claimed that stocks are in much better shape than official landing statistics. To manage fisheries successfully, it is essential to have reliable and accurate data on fishing activity and landings. It is the very lack of such data that has led the Commission—reluctantly, I believe—to begin legal proceedings against the United Kingdom for failing to take adequate steps to ensure that fishing activity and landings are properly monitored and recorded.
	I recognise that the fishing industry has been badly affected by the impact of successive cuts in quota over the last three to four years and that there have been tensions as fishermen adjust to changing circumstances, but that is no excuse for dropping our guard. Effective and consistent standards of monitoring and control across the Community remain a key objective and we must be seen to be playing our part. Fisheries inspectors have a key role to play. They do a difficult job at the best of times, and I trust that all members of the industry will continue to co-operate fully with them in the performance of their duties.

Edward Leigh: Has the Minister noted the 43rd report of the Public Accounts Committee, which states:
	"The probability of a fishing vessel being subject to physical inspection at sea or on landing fish is low, being just 1 and 6% respectively on any day of fishing."
	In fact, if people infringe the quotas, the chance of their being found out is extremely low.

Ben Bradshaw: I certainly welcome the PAC report, which has already informed some of the measures that we are taking to improve our enforcement record and will continue to do so. I do not think that it is fair to paint a completely bleak picture of our enforcement system. We have one of the highest spends on enforcement under the CFP in the whole EU; we impose some of the stiffest penalties on people who are caught and prosecuted, and our inspectors do an excellent job. However, I acknowledge that there is plenty of room for improvement, and the recommendations of the PAC report are welcome and helpful.

Roy Beggs: Has the Minister any plan to develop closer working relationships between scientists and fishermen, so that the scientific outcomes are more believable to fishermen?

Ben Bradshaw: Not only do we have plans, but in the last financial year we spent £1 million of public money on collaborative projects between fishermen and scientists. We have put scientists on trawler boats for the first time at the request of fishermen from ports where for a long time they have said, "Oh, we know where the fish are. We can find plenty of them. There are plenty of cod out there. We'll show you if you put some scientists on our boats." We have also put fishermen on the scientific vessels. That exchange has contributed to a better atmosphere between scientists and the fishing industry than there was a year ago, and it is desperately important that we try to improve that in future. I should like a system whereby each region's fishing industry took responsibility for the management of its own industry, but in doing so would have to fund and accept the scientific research, as happens in some of the most successful fisheries in other parts of the world.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister will be aware that all vessels over 18 m will need to be fitted with satellite tracking devices from 1 January. Does he accept that that represents a significant contribution to enforcement, particularly in relation to days-at-sea regulations? What assessment of that proposal's effectiveness has his Department made?

Ben Bradshaw: Again, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: effective satellite monitoring will become increasingly important in future fisheries management. If he is patient, he will hear some good news a little later in my speech, which is about to come to an end.

Malcolm Savidge: I thank my hon. Friend for being generous in giving way once more. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, referred to 1 and 6 per cent. in any day's fishing, so the chances of boats being inspected in any given year are surely not that bad. I am not saying that we do not need to do much more, but we are carrying out proper supervision.

Ben Bradshaw: We could do better, but we are neither the worst nor the best on enforcement.

Anthony Steen: The Minister will be aware that one of the major problems in south Devon and the rest of the west country is the number of dolphins caught by way of by-catch. Scottish and French boats are to blame. Does that concern him? What will he do about it? It is most dreadful to see hundreds, if not thousands, of those dolphins washed up on the beaches of the west country.

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman raises the spectre of the old alliance. He is right to say that cetacean by-catch is a problem, but it is not restricted exclusively to pair trawling for bass off the south-west coast; it happens in all fisheries, unfortunately. At the most, only two or three pairs of Scottish boats are involved, compared with about 30 from the French side. While we take the problem extremely seriously and have been funding some very successful research involving the use of a separator grid in the nets, which almost reduced to zero the number of dolphins caught in that way, the French have so far not shown the same sense of urgency. There is not even the same awareness of it in France, but we are working very hard on that. My predecessor wrote to the French Fisheries Minister, and we are giving the evidence of our successful trials to the Commission and the French. We very much hope to make progress on that sad phenomenon.
	I expect to set out our plans to enhance monitoring and control early in the new year, taking account of any additional commitments that arise from the decisions to be taken at next week's Council. The plans will involve a greater emphasis on weighing and inspecting fish in port, changes to our designated port arrangements, the installation of tamper-proof satellite position-reporting terminals on all vessels over 15 m and the registration of the sellers and buyers of first-sale fish. I can also advise the House that my Department will meet the full cost of fitting satellite terminals to all vessels for which it is the licensing authority.
	I want to end on a more strategic note. The reason why we contemplated the measures now under discussion, with the pain that they have unquestionably brought, is to ensure a sustainable future for our fishing industry. It would be good for the decisions that we take to be reached within the framework of a long-term strategy aimed at that sustainable future. That was exactly why the Prime Minister, after last December's Council of Ministers, asked his strategy unit to set up a fisheries project to identify the options for ensuring a long-term sustainable future for the industry. The strategy unit has been doing an extremely thorough job of examining the issues and discussing ideas with all interested parties. Its report will be an important document, and we look forward to receiving it early in the new year.

John Whittingdale: This is the first time I have spoken in this debate, but the issues under discussion are depressingly familiar. Once again, they revolve around a Fisheries Council at which the agenda will consist of further reductions in total allowable catches, leading to further cuts in quotas, squeezing still further an industry that is already in crisis. For fishermen, the outlook is one of unremitting gloom as each year they struggle harder to survive while yet more of their number give up the fight and leave the industry for good.
	Fishing is not just another industry—it is one of the first ever pursued by the residents of these islands and it is also one of the most dangerous. The chief inspector of the marine accident investigation branch said in his annual report last year:
	"Fishing remains the single most hazardous occupation in the United Kingdom."
	Last year, 18 fishing vessels were reported lost, and I would like to pay tribute to the eight crew members who lost their lives.
	No one understands better than fishermen the need to conserve fish stocks. If there was evidence that the common fisheries policy was succeeding in building back up depleted stocks, they would be much more willing to support it. The CFP, however, has been a miserable failure. Each year, the estimates of stocks are reduced once again and the inevitable prescription is another cut in TACs.

Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to identify the common fisheries policy as being an unmitigated disaster. Will he take the opportunity to apologise on behalf of the Conservative party for signing the UK up to it in the first place?

John Whittingdale: I suspect that all Governments need to take some of the blame, and I would point at the record of the previous Labour Government, who extended the limits to 200 miles and gave access to EU ships into all those British waters. I want to concentrate on the future, however, and on what the next Conservative Government will do.
	It takes three years for a cod to mature, so fishermen point out rightly that if the policy were working, after three years, TACs should start improving. The revision, however, is always downward, and the pressure on the industry increases relentlessly.

Joan Humble: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise and acknowledge that in fact the Irish sea cod recovery programme is working, and it is doing so because of the commitment of Irish sea fishermen, including my constituents in Fleetwood? The cod stocks are going up, and this year the Commission is suggesting a small increase. The problem for Fleetwood fishermen is the associated species. The cod recovery programme, however, is paying dividends, and we are seeing mature cod—it is working.

John Whittingdale: It is good to hear that in one small part one species is showing some signs of recovery. If the hon. Lady concludes from that that the common fisheries policy is a success, however, I suspect that her fishermen would not agree.

Calum MacDonald: Actually, stocks of herring have increased over the past 20 years, stocks of mackerel have increased over the past 20 years, and stocks of shellfish are doing better than they have done over the past 20 years. How does that square with the hon. Gentleman's simplistic condemnation of the common fisheries policy?

John Whittingdale: If Labour Members believe that the common fisheries policy has been such a wonderful success, why is it that every year more and more of our fishermen go out of business and we experience continuing reductions in quotas? Why is it that the Minister must again go to the Fisheries Council to argue against yet another savage cut in quotas that will lead to more of our fishermen losing their livelihoods? It is fiction to believe that the policy has been a success. It is hardly any wonder that fishermen conclude that the CFP has little to do with conserving fish stocks and rather more to do with accommodating the vast Spanish fishing fleet in our waters.
	Before the advent of the common fisheries policy, the British fishing industry was a model of sustainability. Thirty years on, throughout which the CFP has been in operation supposedly to conserve stocks, large areas of the most fertile and productive fishing grounds in the world are threatened with closure.

Shona McIsaac: The hon. Gentleman says that we had wonderful fisheries 30 years ago. Does he acknowledge that one of the greatest impacts on our fishing industry resulted from the cod war when Iceland introduced its own fishing limit? It is wrong to blame the EU for the decline in places such as Grimsby, because that was a result of the cod war.

John Whittingdale: I do not share the hon. Lady's view that the problem was all Iceland's fault, and I doubt whether fishermen would agree with her either. In 1995—only eight years ago—there were 9,200 British fishing vessels that landed 912,000 tonnes of fish on these shores. In 2002, 7,003 vessels landed 686,000 tonnes—a 25 per cent. reduction in just eight years.
	The decline in Scotland has been even more dramatic. There was a total of 1,782 boats of more than 10 m in length in 1975, but it is estimated from current decommissioning plans that there will be about 700 such boats next year. That will represent a 60 per cent. cut in the Scottish fishing fleet since we joined the CFP. Each of the sold or decommissioned boats would have grossed an average of £300,000 a year at current values from landing about 333 tonnes of fish. The annual loss of direct income to the catching sector is therefore more than £300 million. However, the knock-on effects of that are felt far more widely. Associated industries that are dependent on fishing, such as processing, marketing, netting and boat repair industries, have suffered. The recognised gross domestic product impact ratio for fisheries is 2.35 times the landed value, so the total annual loss to the Scottish economy as a result of the reduction to the Scottish fishing fleet has reached £785 million. If one adds to that the cost to public funds from unemployment benefit and other benefits, the figure is still higher.
	The figures cannot reveal the personal tragedies experienced and the destruction of thriving communities that lie behind them. Major harbours such as Lossiemouth that used to be a focus of social and economic life throughout the year are now reduced to being marinas for a handful of yachts for a few weeks in summer. The story is repeated all around the coast of Britain. I was in Lowestoft yesterday, which was once the largest fishing port in England and only a few years ago would have been home to a couple of hundred boats, including 130 ft trawlers. I saw only a dozen boats in the harbour yesterday and only two were more than 10 m long. I went on to attend the morning fish auction in the purpose-built hall on the quayside. The hall is cavernous—it stretches perhaps five times the length of the Chamber—yet the fish available for auction on what I was told was a relatively good day took up only a few square metres of space. Additionally, a significant proportion of the fish, including the one large halibut that sold for £250, had not been caught by local boats but imported from Iceland.
	The tragedy for our fishing industry is that there is no reason why it must be in decline. Other countries manage their fisheries extremely successfully by conserving stocks and supporting a viable industry. Norway operates a quota system that is agreed by a management advisory board on which fishermen are represented. Discards are banned, as is the fishing of undersized fish. Cheating is largely unknown.
	In the Faroe islands, fishing is the principal source of income. The incentive to manage stocks in a sustainable way is even greater. Under their system, vessels are grouped according to size and gear type. Each group is allocated a set number of fishing days per year, which are divided among the vessels. That is combined with gear regulations designed to protect juvenile fish, as well as closures of extensive areas to active gear, such as trawls, to protect nurseries and spawning stocks.
	By allocating fishing days rather than stock quotas, mixed fisheries are allowed, giving the entire catch an economic value. The system works extremely well in achieving its aim that not more than a third of each stock should be taken every year. It is well supported by the fishermen, who are closely involved in deciding the number of fishing days to be allotted each year. As one respected fishing journalist recently wrote:
	"There are always some complaints, but the grass roots hatred and sheer loathing of the management system that is heard from fishermen in Iceland and most EU countries is entirely absent in the Faroes. Unbelievably, everyone in the Faroes appears happy with their system. Stocks are healthy and fishing is flourishing".
	In the Falklands, strict controls are exercised within the 200-mile conservation zone. The main squid species caught has a lifespan of just a year, so the stock assessment needs to be updated constantly. To ensure that conservation targets are achieved, fishing effort is controlled by strictly limiting the number of vessels licensed to fish within the zone. The lesson of the Falklands and the Faroes is that because the fishermen trust the data, they are prepared to accept limitations on their activities based on it.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Does he understand why the Minister is so hostile to the idea of banning discards when last year 20,000 tonnes of fish, more than the combined quotas for cod and haddock, were dumped dead in the sea and not landed for human consumption? Is not that an outrage? Would not getting rid of that system make a lot of difference?

John Whittingdale: It would clearly make a difference. Discarding dead fish into the sea is a disgrace and should be stopped. I agree with my right hon. Friend that that is an essential component of a sensible fisheries policy.

Richard Bacon: My hon. Friend mentioned the Falkland islands, which I visited last year. I saw the fisheries department while I was there. As it controls the system, it can close the entire fishery earlier than planned if necessary. As it takes three years for a cod to mature, is it not the case, with 900,000 people unemployed, 14,000 of whom are fishermen, as a Minister of State told me the other day, that for the cost of just one failed Government computer system we could support the entire fishing industry in this country for three years, keep out all the foreign boats and have a sustainable industry again?

John Whittingdale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, in particular for telling us of his recent experience in the Falklands. He is, of course, absolutely right.
	The essential point is that there are very successful examples of national fisheries management schemes which contrast with the complete failure of the CFP. The system of quotas for each species that is operated under the CFP means that a fish of a different species or a fish that is in excess of quota is discarded back into the sea, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said. Each year as many, if not more, fish are discarded to pollute the seabed as are landed for human consumption. How can that possibly help the conservation effort? The alternative is that the fish are landed black and fishermen risk being turned into criminals for breaching quota regulations.

Bob Blizzard: The hon. Gentleman gave examples of the way in which more remote islands manage their fish stocks. I agree that the CFP has, self-evidently, not conserved fish. In advocating national controls, however, how would he deal with the issue of the median line in the North sea? The fish would not respect the median line. Many species spawn in shallower water on the continental side and swim over. If we had the median line, the Dutch and others would catch all the fish before they got here.

John Whittingdale: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the CFP has been a complete failure. That is at least an advance on some of his colleagues. Obviously, if there were national management—I shall say a little about how we believe it should operate—it would require negotiation and bilateral agreements with other fishing nations.

Ben Bradshaw: That will be easy.

John Whittingdale: I think that compared with the annual fight which he goes into and which is about to take place next week, where every nation scratches around to try to benefit its own fishing industry within the framework of an ever-reducing total allowable catch, it will be rather more simple. As I have said, the CFP has been a complete failure. Almost anything would be an improvement on the CFP.

Edward Leigh: May I give a positive idea to my hon. Friend that might commend itself to Members on both sides of the House? It is an idea that was discussed in the report of the Public Accounts Committee. It relates to discarded fish. Many of these fish are dead or dying when they are thrown into the sea. We suggested that we should seek changes in European Union legislation to allow the landing of discards and over-quota catches, but with proceeds being used to fund research and greater enforcement activity, as is already the case in Iceland. Will my hon. Friend and perhaps the Minister consider this idea?

John Whittingdale: The report of my hon. Friend's Committee is undoubtedly a valuable contribution. However, we believe that the problem is the system itself. A system based on quotas creates the incentive or the necessity either for the discard of dead fish which are over quota or the alternative, which is the illegal landing of fish. Many fishermen have little choice but to break the law, given that their allocation of legal quota is so pitiful that it is impossible for them to sustain a living. At the same time, the enforcement system has led to fishery inspectors, who were previously regarded as the friends of fishermen, being regarded with utter hatred throughout the industry.
	As has been suggested in several interventions, fishermen are increasingly disbelieving of the figures on which TACs are based. Estimates of fish stock are based on two main types of data; those which are fishery dependent and those which are fishery independent. Fishery dependent data come from commercial vessels and comprise the quantities of fish landed into port and measures of the time spent fishing or searching for fish to catch. The quota allocations are so inadequate that inevitably fishermen cheat to make a living. They either do not declare landings or they make false declarations as to the locations in which fish are caught. As a result, the amount of fish is under-reported, leading to quotas being set even lower.
	Even the European Commission has now acknowledged that
	"the reliability of commercial fisheries information has declined."
	The Commission is therefore relying increasingly on data from research vessels, but those too are flawed. For instance, in the critical North sea cod fishery, test trawls are made by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs-commissioned survey vessels. These are conducted in the spring and autumn when standardised gear is shot in specific locations at the same time each year, and trawling is carried out at a standard speed for half an hour. The catch is then measured and compared year on year to determine changes in stocks.
	It has been said that the process is similar to flying in a hot air balloon high over a land completely covered in cloud, with the occupants seeking to determine what lives on the land, how many of each species there are and how their populations might change, all with a basket and a long rope. The surveyors are asked to scrape the basket along the ground for half an hour, haul it up and guesstimate the population, a process which they repeat at the same place at the same time the following year to determine trends.
	Mr. Jim Portus, the chief executive of the South West Fish Producer Organisation, told my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) this morning that the scientists on research vessels often have inappropriate kit that is wrongly set. Those in the industry who have seen photographs were flabbergasted that the Commission should put such reliance on information gleaned from such badly set equipment. The solution, as the Select Committee recommended last year, is to have more independent scientific observers aboard fishing vessels.

Ben Bradshaw: During his visit to Lowestoft yesterday, did the hon. Gentleman visit the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, which conducts those trials, and did he put those questions to it?

John Whittingdale: I did not go to CEFAS, but certainly intend to go back and talk to it. As the hon. Gentleman should know, because he was there a few months ago, there is a CEFAS laboratory in my constituency, so I talk to CEFAS quite regularly.
	The conclusion that we must draw is that ever-reducing quotas are calculated from TACs that are based on questionable data. While the CFP may be limiting unnecessarily the fishing of mature fish, it is failing to prevent industrial fishing, which may be doing far more damage. Trawling for sand eels results in hundreds of thousands of tonnes of the basis of the marine food chain being scooped up every year, while landing at the same time masses of juvenile cod, haddock and whiting as by-catch. To produce fishmeal to feed farmed fish and Danish pigs and, it is even said, fish oil to run a power station, the basic foodstuff on which are fish stocks depend is being removed.
	By any measure, the CFP has been a disaster for the British fishing industry, which is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition reaffirmed on Sunday that
	"we are committed to a policy of withdrawing from the Common Fisheries Policy and restoring national control for our fishing industry".
	In the next few months, we will develop a new way of managing fish stocks based on controlling inputs by limiting fishing effort and banning industrial fishing in place of the discredited and damaging quota system of output controls. As I have said, other places such as the Faroes operate such management schemes extremely successfully. We therefore intend to sit down with the fishermen to work out the details of an alternative to the CFP.

Ben Bradshaw: How is the hon. Gentleman going to ban industrial fishing if he takes national control, which he knows is impossible, in those bits of the North sea over which we have no control?

John Whittingdale: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman precisely how we will do so. It is not impossible to restore national control over our own waters—it is a question of political will. I shall explain to the hon. Gentleman how we will do so, as there is a genuine opportunity on the table right now to carry out a renegotiation of the CFP. In the draft constitution that is being considered by the intergovernmental conference, article 12 gives the European Union exclusive competence over
	"the conservation of marine biological resources under the Common Fisheries Policy".
	The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who served on the Convention on the Future of Europe, said that
	"this is basically a renegotiation of the basic Treaties".
	There is therefore no reason why the Government cannot introduce a proposal in the IGC to renegotiate the CFP and restore national control. That should be a red line issue for the Government, but instead they are meekly prepared to continue with a failed policy that is destroying our industry.

Bob Blizzard: If that is the case, why did the Conservative representative on the Convention on the Future of Europe not make an issue of that in all the months in which he talked about it? He made one feeble reference to it, and did not turn it into a major issue. Why, when the Conservative party had the chance to put it on the agenda, did it fail to do so?

John Whittingdale: I have the highest regard for my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who represented my party on the convention, and I am told that he did move amendments to that effect. Nobody could be more robust in their defence of British industry and the British fishing industry than my right hon. Friend.

Richard Bacon: My hon. Friend may like to know that our right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said in the Standing Committee on the Convention that he would often move amendments. He also protested about the fact that an amendment moved by someone opposed to a proposal would not even be recorded.

John Whittingdale: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. I have no doubt that that is the case. I am afraid that all too often during the process of that Convention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells was a lone voice of sanity.

Malcolm Savidge: If the right hon. Member for Wells was a lone voice of sanity, what chance does the hon. Gentleman think he would have of conducting a successful negotiation?

John Whittingdale: I will tell the hon. Gentleman precisely. I quote the example of his own Prime Minister, who said before the general election in 1997:
	"We certainly have not ruled out holding up IGC business in order to get the right changes to fishing policy in the British interest".
	Now his Government are not even prepared to put it on the agenda.
	The Government have said that they are prepared to fight to prevent the European Union having any say over our oil and gas reserves, as is proposed in the energy chapter of the European constitution.

Alex Salmond: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that Professor Neil McCormick incessantly moved amendments on fisheries in the Convention? Perhaps a little more support from the Conservative representative would have been appreciated. The Conservatives did not raise the matter on 16 September 2003. The hon. Gentleman has alighted on a good policy. It would help his credibility if he admitted that it is also a very recent policy for the Conservative party.

John Whittingdale: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support, but it was the policy of my party rather earlier than it was the policy of his party. The policy was advocated under the past three leaders of the Conservative party.
	I return to the Government's determination to fight to prevent the EU having any say over our oil and gas reserves. The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) tabled a good early-day motion on the subject which has been signed by almost 100 of his colleagues. It calls for the Government to veto any proposal to cede competence over licensing and other national control of the UK's oil and gas reserves to the European Union. Although the Government are prepared to stand up to protect our oil and gas reserves, they seem unwilling even to contemplate mounting a similar fight to re-establish national control of our fish reserves.
	When France and Germany recently decided that the terms of the stability pact were operating against their national interest, what did they do? They simply ignored them. It is not true to say, therefore, that a policy to restore national control cannot be achieved. It is a matter of political will. It is time for the Government to start standing up for the interests of the British fishing industry. Unless they do so, there soon will not be an industry left.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. That applies from now on.

Calum MacDonald: I shall raise a matter that is of great importance for my constituency and for fishermen up and down the west coast of Scotland. It is a matter that has already been mentioned in the debate: the nephrops stocks on the west coast of Scotland.
	In opening the debate, the Minister observed that nephrops stocks are perfectly healthy and viable. Indeed, my fishermen tell me that the catches are as good as they have been for 20 years, in terms of both the quantity of the landings and the quality of the prawns. The catch is exceptionally good, but stocks are affected by the linkage to the threatened cod stock.
	The Minister suggested in his opening remarks that we should consider finding technical solutions to the problem. Instead of going down the road proposed by the European Commission this year and last year of reducing the prawn stock or other viable stocks in order to have a positive impact on cod, we should look at technical measures that would allow us to continue fishing for viable stocks without having an adverse impact on cod.
	I should like to use my few minutes to flag up one proposal that has emerged recently from within the industry, which I urge the Minister to consider and to ask his officials to study with a view to pressing it at the Council later this month.The Commission, in its proposals for the west coast nephrops stocks, has once again advocated a reduction, this time of the somewhat puzzling figure of 40 tonnes, which set against an overall TAC of 11,300 tonnes would not seem to make much difference one way or the other, and one wonders how on earth it came up with that particular figure. The concern of my fishermen is not simply to avert that reduction but, as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) said earlier, to try to restore the previous 10 per cent. cut, and even to go beyond that and increase the TAC to a sustainable level that can provide a viable fishery.
	The proposal that has emerged recently is to try to target conservation measures on the best spawning grounds for cod—to try a zonal approach to the problem of the west coast prawns and cod linkage. I am told that the consensus in the scientific community is that the best spawning ground for cod on the west coast is just north of my constituency, about 40 miles off the Butt of Lewis, and the proposal that has achieved a consensus in the industry is for a full closure of that area for prawn trawling at least during the spawning of the cod, which is typically from about February through to April. A complete three-month closure of prawn trawling could be targeted on that area to ensure that the spawning grounds are untouched, giving the cod a chance then to move on into the wider area.
	In return for such a complete closure, affecting prawn trawling in that area, the industry wants not just a holding off of the proposed 40-tonne cut, but a restoration of the 10 per cent. cut that happened some years ago, and a fresh look at the case for a gradual restoration to the original TAC of several years ago, when it was in the order of 16,000 tonnes. As the Minister is already aware, the case for a restoration to that figure is considerable, because there is a strong argument that the current TACs are based on a misreading of the landing figures some years ago.
	I should be grateful if the Minister would give an undertaking that he will look closely at that new proposal that has emerged to tackle the problem that has already been flagged up in the course of the opening speeches, and that he will look sympathetically at the case for a zonal closure in return for a restoration of the 10 per cent. cut on the west coast. It would be helpful if he could tell me later or in writing whether he is sympathetic in principle to such a zonal approach—so that the industry will know whether it should continue to investigate and research the matter—and give a commitment to look hard at the new proposals, and with urgency, so that they can be raised and, I hope, pushed at the summit later this month.

Andrew George: May I welcome the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) to our annual fisheries debates? He was right to pay tribute to fishermen and fishing communities, and to reflect on the tragic loss of eight lives in the industry this year. Those of us who represent fishing constituencies fully understand the tragic circumstances in which the industry often has to operate, and we use this opportunity to reflect on them each year.
	Once again, we are discussing in the annual fisheries debate rather panicked negotiations occurring at the eleventh hour about how we are to settle TACs and quotas for species that will be vital to the industry over the next 12 months. Although the revised common fisheries policy talked bravely of the need to establish a medium-term plan in respect of multi-annual quotas, which would at least inform the industry about the prospect of the indicative quotas for subsequent years on the basis of the best science available in making decisions for the next year, the fact is that no mention has so far been made of multi-annual quotas. One of a number of failures of the policy that have occurred since its reform at the beginning of this year is the failure to look for medium-term solutions to the very serious problems that are besetting the industry.
	A complaint was rightly made in the previous debate on this matter about the fact that negotiations and discussions between fishermen and scientists were still not as productive and constructive as we would have hoped. In many other European countries, the relationship between scientists and fishermen is more productive, and greater confidence and respect operate both ways. When one speaks to fishermen in this country, it is clear that they still strongly feel a sense of disregard of the basis on which scientific advice is given. That is clearly an issue on which further work is needed.
	Work is also needed on something that I detected at an early stage in the negotiations—the fact that the scientists are not bringing fishermen in early enough to discuss the science. In my view, the Minister has a role to play in encouraging better dialogue at a much earlier stage in the process. He knows from his own dealings in respect of monkfish in area VII, for example, about an indicative and precautionary quota that has been set on the best information that the scientists say is available to them, despite fishermen's claims that the stock is a great deal more healthy. When fishermen demonstrate what is happening during the year by referring to catch and landings, as well as to the speed of those landings, which is a clear indication of the health of the angler fish stock, it is important that scientists learn lessons from them, just as fisherman—to be fair, it is a balanced relationship—sometimes need to learn lessons from the scientists.
	I think I heard the Minister, in response to an earlier question, make the telling remark that fishermen and scientists need to take responsibility for the management of the fishery. Indeed, one of the failings of the annual fisheries debate is the fact that we are here at all, debating the details about the relationship between nephrops and cod, and cod and haddock, and about what will happen in area VII and the North sea. Politicians, who merely dip into the subject from time to time, are not best placed to make decisions on those subjects.
	The Minister must admit that when he goes to negotiations such as those in the Council of Ministers, which he is soon to attend, the Ministers, even with the benefit of their best experts' advice, are likely to come up with a political fix. That is what happens each year. All the evidence is pushing us towards recognising the need to give fishermen and scientists genuine responsibility for the management of their fisheries in devolved regions.

Bob Blizzard: The hon. Gentleman is talking about fishermen and scientists. Does he also acknowledge the substantial contribution made to the local economy in his constituency and mine, and in the others all round our coasts, by recreational sea angling, which I believe is worth about £1 billion a year? Does he agree that as politicians we should give some thought to how we can manage the stocks immediately around our coast so that sea angling is encouraged, and can continue to make that important contribution?

Andrew George: Yes, but there are also other stakeholders who should be involved in the discussions and the production of management plans. Fishermen and scientists are the two groups that tend to lock horns most on the issue of what is best overall for fisheries management. Clearly they need to be there as two of the main stakeholders in any decision-making process, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that recreational sea anglers, too, need to be represented. Indeed, it was sea anglers who first drew attention to the problem of cetacean by-catch in western waters. They also pointed out that pair trawling was having a detrimental impact on bass stocks, which normally made a substantial contribution to the local economy of the coastal communities in the west, where many tourists are taken out to catch bass by line.
	There are other stakeholders, too, such as processors and environmental bodies such as WWF, which is now engaged with the industry, including the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation, in the establishment of the new project in the south-west. There are many bodies that could play a constructive and productive role in the future of the regional management bodies.
	There was a policy within the revised common fisheries policy to establish regional advisory councils. We were all disappointed that those were to be purely advisory, and in discussions with Commissioner Fischler it was encouraging that he wanted to develop that idea into regional fisheries management councils, but as a written answer from the Department received yesterday shows, a year into the policy, little has happened.
	Most of the development has resulted from the industry's desire to push the process along, which has not been helped by either the Commission or the Government. In that written answer, the Minister who is here today says:
	"It will take time for effective RACs to develop, but fishermen and other interests active in international fisheries partnerships in the North sea, the Irish sea and the south west, the Baltic and the Mediterranean have already made good progress".—[Official Report, 8 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 224W.]
	That is largely the result of their own initiative, and not because the European Commission has pushed them in that direction. Support is needed if that policy is to make progress. We need to step up the momentum in delivering that policy.
	I do not want to rehearse the arguments already made to some extent in interventions. The Minister will be armed with industry responses to specific proposals, especially for cod, monkfish, herring, haddock, nephrops and hake. However, it is clear that the industry is justified in querying the science. For example, the absolute measure for North sea cod spawning stock biomass shows an increase of around 60 per cent. over the past two years. That meets the SSB regeneration target of 30 per cent. that has been predicted, and planned for. Similarly, the hake recovery programme has been shown to have worked well so far. The Minister must take account of the variety of views about the science.
	The same is true for the inevitability of a very significant mixed-fishery by-catch. There has been a high cod by-catch in western waters, for example. A lot of the area VII fishery is mixed, and the Minister must find new methods for the proper management of such areas. We need a more sophisticated and localised method of fisheries management, as it cannot be denied that the CFP has been extremely damaging to fishing communities, fish stocks and fishermen. We must move away as quickly as possible from the centralised basis of the CFP.

Owen Paterson: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore endorse the views of his colleague in Scotland, Mr. Tavish Scott, a member of the coalition Government in Scotland, who said:
	"The CFP has failed fishermen, fishing communities and fish stocks and must end."
	That view has been endorsed by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).

Andrew George: Yes. The CFP has failed in exactly the way that has been described. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that we need to examine credible solutions that will deliver a better future for fishermen. However, the Conservatives were responsible for fisheries policy for 18 years, and never once in all that time did the apparently obvious—that they should unilaterally withdraw from the CFP—occur to them in a blinding flash. It was not muttered or mentioned even once, but that suddenly became party policy a few nanoseconds after the Conservatives lost power in 1997. The Conservative policy on fishing has no credibility.

Shona McIsaac: Did the hon. Gentleman notice that the anti-European brigade exited the Chamber a few nanoseconds after the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman sat down, and as soon as my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) rose to speak? Unlike Conservative Members, he knows an awful lot about this subject.

Andrew George: That is certainly true. Although many hon. Members are genuinely concerned about the future of a serious industry, it is tragic that many fishing communities and fishermen are used as convenient front-line troops in an anti-European war by many Members who represent land-locked constituencies. We need serious and credible solutions. If we can suspend disbelief and concede that the Conservatives have a policy that is legally and technically attainable, let us scrutinise it. I keep an open mind on all these issues, but I fundamentally believe that we should have a policy that is deliverable and that gives fishermen in the UK a better future than is currently projected for them. I am always prepared to consider alternative approaches.
	I strongly endorse the views expressed by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, about industrial fishing. We need a more robust debate on that issue. We should take that bull by the horns, because such fishing has a detrimental effect on the stocks of sand eels and scad. As has been shown, a significant by-catch of white fish is also associated with industrial fishing.
	I draw the Minister's attention to a deep concern in some coastal communities about the six and 12-mile zones. Fishermen in my constituency use inshore boats to fish to the six-mile limit, but they often find large French trawlers trawling across their fixed gear. That is happening with increasing frequency, and damage occurs to gear in many cases. That restricts many cove fishermen from the far west of Cornwall to within the six-mile limit, and it does not give them room for manoeuvre. Those fishermen already face tremendous problems, so they need our support.
	A serious problem also relates to the future of small cove boats. Fishing from boats of less than 8 m—those that are dragged up the beaches in many coves in Cornwall and the south-west—is often restricted by quotas. Such boats use sustainable methods to catch shellfish and other species, and it is argued that they should form a sub-group below the 10 m restrictions and have different regulations applied to them.
	I also wish to caution the Minister about the shellfish licensing scheme, which will be implemented progressively from January to April next year. Many young people are now able to enter the inshore industry literally with a punt and go out to catch crab. They have traditionally been able to build their own businesses in that way. Even though the shellfish licensing scheme provides them with the freedom to catch five lobster and 25 crab, that would not provide them with sufficient opportunity to succeed. Such young people are the future lifeblood of the inshore industry in many coves, and I would like the Minister to consider ways of protecting quotas so that young entrants are not excluded from the industry. There is concern in some communities that the introduction of shellfish licensing will mean the end of cove fishing.
	With those remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your forbearance.

Frank Doran: I want to make a short contribution about the processing side of the industry and to address other issues that have been raised. My primary constituency concern is processing, because Aberdeen lost its main fishing fleet many years ago. A number of issues are of concern to the industry. The major one is that it has become increasingly difficult to secure regular supplies of fish. I think that, if the Minister answered that point directly, he would tell me that the fish processing industry has had quite a good year this year. That is true, but a lot of it has come on the back of imported fish. Most primary processors depend on regular supplies of locally caught white fish. That remains a concern and I ask him to keep himself fully apprised of it.
	The industry is constantly struggling against the difficulties of regulation. Every time I get to my feet in the Chamber to talk about it, new problems seem to have been raised. At the moment, two issues are causing concern: animal by-products legislation and the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999, which is having serious cost implications for the industry. I will write to the Minister about particular concerns on that. There is another major issue. Some sections of the industry went through a difficult period at exactly the same time as the catching side but have not had the same help. There is a sense that it is a two-tier industry. I simply put that point on the record.
	I will not labour the points, but I want to use the rest of the time available to me to pick up on what was said by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). The points he raised are important. Although I do not want to say that I have swallowed them hook, line and sinker—he would not expect me to do that—the way in which the Conservatives and the Scottish National party are addressing the issue sends a warning to the Government. It is important that we do not indulge in the usual political rhetoric and try to brush them off, because there are difficulties.
	Before making my points, I want to say that I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech. He tried to persuade us all of the virtues of independence. The nationalists and the Tory party have always been close—we have known that in Scotland—and it was interesting to hear that being pointed out today. He picked a number of unfortunate examples that do not bear scrutiny, mentioning Norway, the Faroes and the Falklands.
	The Norwegian industry is quite different from ours. Apart from its importance to a country the size of Norway, it has been heavily subsidised and modernised with the aid of oil money. The nationalists will say that we could do that in Scotland, but I am not going down that road. Those factors distinguish it from our industry. Its importance compared with that of the UK industry is different. The importance of the Faroese industry is similar, as fishing is the major industry there, as it is in Iceland. Apart from tourism and the possibility of oil, it is difficult to see what other major industry the Faroes might have. Therefore, we are talking about a completely different situation.
	What amused me was the hon. Gentleman's reference to the Falklands. I have been there and seen its industry. There is virtually no indigenous fishing industry in the Falklands. There is no fishing fleet. The Falklanders sell their licences to foreign vessels, making £40 million to £50 million a year, which has transformed the Falklands economy. I think that there is an argument, although fish processors in my constituency do not want to hear it, for learning one lesson from the Falklands—I refer to the idea of selling licences each year. However, some fishermen have spent thousands of pounds in buying up licences for quota, so they would be greatly opposed to that idea.
	On the basis of how the Scottish nationalists and the Conservatives are reacting and from what I know about my area, there are real problems with how the common fisheries policy is managed. It is important to see how the stakeholders are reacting to the management of the CFP. It suggests that we are at a fairly advanced stage in the breakdown of trust in the process. That means that we are in real difficulties. I do not need to go into the details, because the Minister has already heard the various interventions about those matters.
	I always listen carefully to the fishermen in my constituency. I have been involved in these debates since I was first elected to this place in 1997. Throughout that period, mistrust in the Commission was never as strong as it is now. We have heard the word "contempt" used, but I believe that that is too strong because most people in the industry know that they depend on the Commission for their future. Nevertheless, serious concerns remain about the management of the CFP. Every year around December, there are a couple of months of panic as the scientists produce their report, the Commission produces its response and the various forces within the EU go into battle to deal with the issues.

Angus Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern and that of hon. Members on both sides of the House, including members of the European Scrutiny Committee, that, with the entrenchment of the common fisheries policy and with fishing becoming an exclusive competence in the EU constitution, we are taking a dangerous step backwards? Will he urge his Front-Bench colleagues, in the few remaining weeks of the IGC, to turn that position around?

Frank Doran: I am not going down that road. The hon. Gentleman knows that many issues, in which we have both been involved, remain open to negotiation. I hope that that is one of the issues that will be dealt with. The whole basis of the negotiations is of major concern. There is a major rift between the industry and the scientists. We all welcome the advice and we need hard facts. I looked, for example, at the briefing from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. It is a modest and serious briefing, throughout which there are constant challenges to the scientific evidence.

Alistair Carmichael: rose—

Frank Doran: I want to finish my points and I know that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.
	The industry has gone through two years of trauma, in which the Scottish fleet has been reduced by half. We heard this morning from the chief executive of the Sea Fish Industry Authority that the income of operators in the white fish catching side of the industry has decreased by another 30 per cent. this year. There are serious issues here. If the stakeholders are losing confidence in the process, the process will fail.
	It is no accident that both the Conservatives and the nationalists have adopted withdrawal from the CFP as the main plank in their fisheries policy. I certainly do not support that policy, which is nonsense and populist and will be extremely damaging to our fishing industry. At the same time, however, the Government must pay attention to what is happening on the ground. Debates about the future of the industry have moved on immensely since the Government were elected in 1997. Everyone in the industry awaits the report from the strategy unit due in 2003, which will make an important contribution to the debate. Somehow or other, we must get the message across to the Commission that it must understand the growing problems created by the management of our industry.

Ann Winterton: I wish to begin by genuinely wishing the Minister well in the forthcoming negotiations at the Council of Ministers. For him, it will be a baptism of fire, but it is essential for the actual survival of the industry that he is successful and salvages what he can for the UK fishing industry. It will not be a straightforward meeting at which the UK can make real progress, because the proposals come directly from the Commission and will already be cut and dried. It must also be recognised that the Council of Ministers cannot change the Commission's proposals other than by unanimity. The Commission is, after all, the guardian of the treaties and therefore works only within the confines of those treaties.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) clearly and succinctly described to the House the policy espoused by the Conservative party, but I want to correct the impression that it is a recent policy. I remind the House that the former hon. Member for Teignbridge first introduced it, followed by myself—

Bob Blizzard: He was sacked.

Ann Winterton: As was I. However, the policy will not be sacked, because it is right. The post was then held, with great distinction, by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who has not been sacked. Now we have my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, and I would put money on him not being sacked. He will stay and carry the policy through into government.

Bob Blizzard: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ann Winterton: No. The hon. Gentleman has already intervened many times today. He should make his own speech, rather than trying to be reported in his local newspaper by intervening on other hon. Members.

Alex Salmond: I would not dispute for a second the hon. Lady's consistency on this matter. When I referred to a recent policy, it was not the policy of withdrawal from the common fisheries policy, but the recent realisation that the European Convention provides the lever to bring about the fundamental renegotiation of fisheries policy. That is the recent conversion.

Ann Winterton: I was actually addressing the point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman. I am pleased to support the Bill of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). He has been converted rather late on the road to Damascus, but he is welcome to join those of us who support the policy of national control.
	During a recent Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Question Time, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) asked:
	"Does the Minister agree that those who claim that we can unilaterally withdraw from the common fisheries policy are engaged in creating an irresponsible diversion and perpetrating a cruel hoax on desperate fishing communities?"
	The cruel hoax is being perpetrated not by the growing number of hon. Members who support national controls, because they put forward the truth, unpalatable as it is to some; it is being perpetrated by their accusers. The hon. Gentleman continued:
	"Does he therefore agree that the UK should now take the lead, grab the issue by the scruff of the neck, go back to the drawing board, and acknowledge that the centralised basis of the common fisheries policy should be scrapped and replaced with a robust, devolved, regional management structure?"—[Official Report, 20 November 2003; Vol. 162, c. 938.]
	The Minister agreed with him, and by so doing displayed the breathtaking lack of knowledge and understanding that the original question exhibited. Frankly, it does not bode well for the forthcoming negotiations when the Minister and the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman, who represents a south-west constituency, are either ignorant of the structure of the European Union and the rules within which we have to work or just do not want to know. No wonder fishermen in the UK industry are in such a desperate state. That solution is not credible.
	First, if we wanted to scrap the centralised basis of the CFP, as confirmed by the Foreign Secretary on 22 October at column 389 in reply to the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing), we would have to scrap the terms of our accession to the EEC in 1973, which included the principle of equal access to a common resource without discrimination. In other words, we would have to withdraw from the CFP, which is exactly what the Conservative party have been saying for several years.
	More often than not, the Liberal Democrats—with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who sensibly consulted his constituents and now supports national control—say different things to different constituencies throughout the United Kingdom. An obvious example, which was mentioned earlier, was provided by the MSP for Shetland, one Tavish Scott, who supports national control while he is in Shetland but who, as a Minister in the Scottish Executive, supports the Liberal Democrat party line of regional management. Something about trying to have one's cake and eat it springs to mind.
	Do the Minister, the hon. Member for St. Ives and other Liberal Democrat Members realise that, with the support of new Labour, they are trying to scrap the CFP? Perhaps the penny has not dropped. If, as they said on 20 November, they want the CFP to be replaced by a robust, devolved, proper regional management structure, perhaps they can tell us how that will be achieved. Commissioner Fischler has already made it clear in relation to Baltic cod that the principle of subsidiarity does not apply to fisheries, so can the Minister or the hon. Member for St. Ives tell us how they will obtain the treaty changes necessary for the type of regional management they support, instead of our being fobbed off with toothless regional councils?

Andrew George: It would of course be churlish of me to point out Tory inconsistencies, although I understand that, on a number of occasions, the Conservative MEP in Scotland has taken a different view of fisheries matters from that of his party. If we assume that the Conservatives have adopted their policy with the best of intentions and that it is neither naked populism nor opposition for opposition's sake, will the hon. Lady at least accept that there is a question of interpretation? Will she keep an open mind as to the possibility technically of delivering a decentralised system, just as I am prepared to keep an open mind about the legality of her claim?

Ann Winterton: All the Scottish MEPs are in favour of national control. In fact, the hon. Gentleman has some questions to answer. I am posing questions to the Liberal Democrats about their party's policy; it is about time they stopped trying to play it both ways. The hon. Gentleman should tell the House precisely—

Calum MacDonald: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ann Winterton: No, I am responding to the hon. Member for St. Ives. I want him to tell the House precisely how the Liberal Democrats will achieve those vital treaty changes and I suggest that he stop trying to deceive fishermen.

Calum MacDonald: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ann Winterton: I have only three minutes left for my speech, so I intend to continue.
	During the same oral questions to which I referred earlier, the Minister accused me of annoying countries with which we would have to negotiate reciprocal arrangements in the event of national control. Let me assure him that Iceland, the Faroes and Norway have made it perfectly clear that they would not even contemplate EU membership unless national control of fisheries was in place. Furthermore, those countries would rather negotiate with the United Kingdom than with the whole European Union.
	What is also staggering is that on 20 November at column 972 of Hansard, the Leader of the House described the other place as unelected and undemocratic, yet the UK fisheries Minister considers it best to relinquish responsibility for the British nation's marine resources and for them to be controlled by an unelected, undemocratic and corrupt Commission. The Government have no principle and no consistency, and they are all over the place.
	I can only say, to the repeated hollow cry that establishing national control will mean leaving the European Union, "What arrant nonsense!" I did not notice France or Germany at the exit door as they broke their treaty obligations on the stability pact; in fact, they seem to be in the driving seat, with the British whimpering at the sidelines.
	On 11 November, during my Adjournment debate on the demise of cod in the British sector, the Minister threw down the gauntlet—he has repeated this twice today—challenging me to produce alternative science. I responded to that challenge by writing to him on 20 November—I have not yet received an acknowledgement or a reply—inviting him to chair a meeting to be held in the House of Commons in the spring, at which scientists of my choice will debate and challenge the scientists who advise him. I very much hope that he will agree to attend, although the meeting will take place anyway. If neither the Minister nor the scientists whom he nominates is present, a clear indication will be given to the fishing industry that the Government's actions cannot be defended, and they will stand condemned in the eyes of fishermen as a result.
	When the Prime Minister recently entertained the President of the United States of America in Sedgefield, they lunched, we are told, in a rather nice pub, on cod, chips and mushy peas. That delectable dish is the hallmark of Save Britain's Fish fringe meetings at Conservative party conference, which always attract maximum attendance, although haddock is served, rather than cod. I am glad that haddock is so plentiful at the moment, and we very much hope that changes will be made so that more can be caught in the future. The cod eaten on that occasion at Sedgefield came from the constituency of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), and I hope there was nothing fishy about that.
	The Prime Minister is on record as saying that he is very partial to fish and chips. What a pity his much-vaunted No. 10 strategy unit was not allowed to start examining fisheries policy with a clean sheet of paper, but was given specific orders: its remit was to stay within the bounds of the CFP. What a wasted opportunity and yet another piece of cruel deception and spin. The truth speaks louder than words, and it is not those who support national control who cruelly deceive but those who shine an imaginary light at the end of a very long tunnel of deception. United Kingdom fishermen will never prosper while policy remains in the CFP, and the fishing industry will suffer yet further emasculation. The only solution is national control based on—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has had her time.

Eddie McGrady: It is with some trepidation that I go from the global problems to the parochial problems of those fishermen in the Irish sea who fish off the County Down coast. The three most important fishing ports in Northern Ireland are on the County Down coast, and two of those are in my constituency. We have an added problem—I had hoped that it would not be a problem this year—in that our devolved institutions are suspended, and we have no local Minister responsible for fisheries to attend the Brussels negotiations. We are dependent on a no doubt able person to represent third hand the concerns and views of the Northern Ireland fishing industry.
	Fishermen's observations regarding the Irish sea are usually criticised as self-interested, but we have evidence from independent scientists that the fishermen's assessment, in fact, has justification. I was rather disappointed during the early part of the Minister's introduction, when he called such scientists dissidents, as opposed to people with dissenting opinions. Those two terms have different meanings in my vocabulary. A scientist's credibility should always be taken on board and he should not be castigated in any way simply because he has a different or opposing view.
	Leaving that aside, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea is much more positive for 2004 in respect of the Irish sea than it has been for many years. In fact, the chairman of the fishery science group stated at a recent meeting that the positive signs from the Irish sea had to be emphasised. We shall look to see how that emphasis on the positive aspects is reflected in the outcome of the negotiations.
	Those positive signs include the fact that cod stocks in the Irish sea have increased by a multiple of three—three times what was there before. In the past year alone, the availability of Irish sea cod has increased by 40 per cent. Those are not the opinions of dissident scientists—the ICES scientists are advisers to the Commission. They go on to say that one of the most important species now, nephrops, remains robust.
	Given that backcloth, the proposals coming out of Brussels indicate that that is not being taken on board. That is so desponding that it has driven the fishermen of Northern Ireland to the point where they, like many others, wish to withdraw from European fisheries policy. I am a committed European. In this instance, however, for serious, particular reasons, I would support a policy of withdrawal unless there is a meaningful, fair and alternative means of species preservation.
	The Northern Ireland fishing fleet is very small. In the past 10 years, however, it has been halved. In the past three years, income right across the white fish industry has dropped by 76 per cent., and in relation to nephrops it has dropped by 40 per cent. The Northern Ireland fishing fleet has made a major contribution, suggested conservation measures, promoted them, participated in them and done a good deal more than its share. That should be taken on board.
	When the measures in relation to closure of the Irish sea were introduced, the Northern Irish fishermen who had suffered since 2000 got no compensation. Yet when other UK fleet industries suffered the same fate, they received transitional aid.

Joan Humble: Does my hon. Friend recognise that Fleetwood fishermen, who were part of that Irish sea community, received no compensation either? They have been working closely with their colleagues in the Northern Ireland fishing communities to make sure that the cod recovery programme works, without receiving any compensation.

Eddie McGrady: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Like me, she is fighting her corner of the Irish sea. I agree that the restricted days-at-sea efforts should be subject to some transitional aid. None was given in Northern Ireland, and none was given to the Fleetwood fleet. We envy the Scottish fishing industry, which, I understand, received some transitional aid, but it has the benefit of devolution.
	If the 10 days per month at sea proposal is brought into effect in respect of the north Irish fleet, it will spell the death knell of that fleet. There is no doubt about that whatever. I remember reading back in 1991–92 a very special report from the European Community on the Irish sea. The report acknowledged the Irish sea's unique biomass and—of particular interest to me—the fact that the fishing communities of the east Down coast to which I refer were so dependent and so vulnerable to the ups and downs of the fishing industry that they required special consideration. I do not think that that report, which was accepted, was ever really put into practice. The specialness of the Irish sea's biomass and the total dependency of communities on fishing was never taken into account to facilitate its findings.
	I could cite the views of several scientists that are much more optimistic than those mentioned by the Minister and give a degree of confidence about how things might go forward. Does the Minister realise that against scientific advice, there is a proposed reduction of the total allowable catch for Irish sea haddock stocks from 1,500 tonnes to 1,075 tonnes? Again against scientific advice, it has been suggested that the TAC for plaice should be reduced from the scientists' recommendation of 1,700 tonnes to 896 tonnes. We have heard about a 14 per cent. increase in the TAC for nephrops in the North sea, but although nephrops are one of the basic species fished in the Irish sea, it is proposed to reduce the TAC for nephrops by a further 340 tonnes.
	We must take account of all those factors and the history of competition from fishermen from the Republic of Ireland. My constituency has a water border with the Republic of Ireland—Carlinford Lough. The restrictions on fishermen in the north of Ireland are not the same as those that apply two miles out at sea across an imaginary water border. The co-operation of these isles is vital if justice is to be done, so I ask the Minister to take on board some of the facts that I have presented tonight—albeit poorly. As someone said, politicians simply have to dip into a difficult science. I do not pretend to be an expert; I simply try to represent the views of my local fishermen and the communities that they sustain.
	A separate Northern Ireland Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development will not represent our fishing industry at the talks this year, unlike the last year, so I ask the Minister to give special consideration to his ministerial colleague who will represent Northern Ireland, and remember that he has three huge Northern Ireland Departments to run—it is difficult enough to deal with only this issue. I ask—I almost beg—for special consideration to be given to the facts and for representatives from the Department for Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland to be given a fair hearing.

Alex Salmond: I used to think that there was a constancy to the personnel in fishing debates—indeed, I used to think that the only thing that changed from debate to debate was the Conservative fishing spokesperson. This year, however, not only the Conservative spokesperson, but the Minister with responsibility for fisheries and the Secretary of State for Scotland have changed. I do not present that to the new Fisheries Minister as a warning. I merely suggest that his performance at the Fisheries Council might be important for his future career prospects, especially as far as fisheries MPs are concerned.
	The loss to fishing communities of the jobs on which they depend has been more important than the change of personnel to fisheries spokespersons. Some 50 per cent.—half—of our Scottish white fish fleet has disappeared and been decommissioned over the past three years. A few years ago, Ross Finnie, the Scottish Minister for Environment and Rural Development, said that he would not preside over the destruction of the Scottish fishing industry, yet he and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), are presiding over the destruction of the Scottish white fish fleet. That is not a forecast; it is what has happened.
	The Scottish White Fish Producers Association and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation gave evidence to the all-party group on fisheries earlier today. They pointed out graphically that we are now in a situation in which every fishing boat in the North sea has 1,000 square miles in which to fish, which shows how few boats we have in our specialist white fish sector. Indeed, Michael Park, the chairman of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, explained that his boat, the Denebula, had to sail 190 miles to help another fishing boat in distress this week because he was closest to it. That is the extent to which our boats and white fish sector have been denuded over the past three years. The industry is the lifeblood of our communities. The companies that depend on that white fish fleet for their orders—the engineers, ice factories, painters and carpenters—are under the most horrendous pressure and have been shamefully treated by the decommissioning scheme in Scotland.
	If there were no fish in the sea, the situation would be regrettable, but perhaps nothing could be done. We are not in that situation, however. The sea is full of fish; it is just empty of fishermen. We heard that the herring and mackerel stocks are at high levels. Haddock stock is on a 32-year high in the North sea; indeed, we could walk to Norway on the haddock in that sea. Prawn stocks are in a robust condition. Cod stocks, although at a low level, are recovering. It might interest the Minister to know that monkfish in the North sea are assessed not on survey data, but purely on landing data. If the quota goes down, the landings go down and the quota is lowered again the following year. After the Minister's experience of monkfish stocks elsewhere, perhaps he will turn his attention to increasing the quota in the North sea, as any intelligent assessment would require and defend.

Calum MacDonald: The hon. Gentleman's solution is unilateral withdrawal from the CFP, as set out in his private Member's Bill introduced at the end of the last Session. When I asked the House of Commons Library to evaluate his Bill, it said:
	"If the Bill were passed, it would not result in the UK withdrawing from the Common Fisheries Policy. That policy has been established by various EC Council Regulations, and no single country can simply repudiate them."
	Surely his Bill and policy are a complete fraud and con on the fishing community.

Alex Salmond: I relied heavily on two things in framing the Bill: the excellent Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and the advice of the House of Commons Clerks. The Bill was well founded. In a reply to a constituent of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) just a few months ago, the Government explained that the UK Parliament could withdraw from the European Act 1972 or any part of that Act. The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) should check with his colleagues and Government before he launches attacks on me.

Ann Winterton: May I back up the hon. Gentleman's point? In a written answer to me, the Minister for Europe said:
	"The UK will honour its international treaty obligations until such time as Parliament decides to repeal the Acts that give effect to them."—[Official Report, 30 October 2003; Vol. 412, c. 360W.]
	It is this place that decides, not the House of Commons Library.

Alex Salmond: As the hon. Lady and I discussed a few moments ago, the European Convention offers the Government a huge opportunity to force the issue, if they had the political will to do so.
	I have three specific points to make on the negotiations. The first is that for all the badinage, they are vital. I told the Minister about the haddock quota and I think that I got a favourable reply on the information from Seafish about the cod by-catch and haddock fishing. If he cannot secure the bountiful quota that we should have in the North sea, he will have committed a cardinal failure.
	I understand that the Prime Minister's strategy unit is complimentary about the Faroese fishing policy. If the Faroese were managing the North sea haddock fishery, this year's quota would be set at 150,000 tonnes as opposed to the 37,000 tonnes suggested by the European Commission. For marketing reasons, the fishing industry would not suggest that the quota should be set that high, but if it were doubled to 80,000 tonnes, that would be worth £40 million to the hard-pressed Scottish fishing industry. Haddock is not the only species that needs to be decoupled from cod, but that quota will be the benchmark on which we judge the success or otherwise of this Fisheries Minister.
	My second point relates to days at sea. The Minister was asked—I think he took it on board—about the huge reduction in capacity absorbed by the Scottish fleet, and the English fleet to a lesser extent, over the past few years. It would be incredible if the Scottish fleet ended up with the same number of days at sea as the Irish or French fleets, which have increased in size. We must make sure, whether it comes out of annexe XVII or annexe V, that we do not end up, having decommissioned half our fleet, with no benefits accruing to the half that remains. The Minister should understand that the fishing entitlement of the decommissioned boats has not gone to the boats that remain. We are in the dreadful position that the people who are still in the industry are not getting the benefit from less fishing effort that has been applied in the North sea and elsewhere.
	Thirdly—this is a point for the Government as well as for other interests—I am sick and tired of hearing arguments from celebrity chefs, environmental organisations, the Government and companies such as Birds Eye on which it is carelessly said that the North sea is denuded of fish, when that is not the case. That claim has been a significant factor, as Seafish told us today, in the reducing the demand for our excellent products over the past year.
	Instead of arguing from that position, the Minister should be addressing the need for more money for Seafish to promote fish. He should be looking carefully at funding for the processing sector to enable it to move into higher value-added markets. He should be refuting, not encouraging, suggestions that there are no fish in the North sea and elsewhere.
	I move on to the European Convention. I think that the Minister is missing the point, as all Fisheries Ministers on being relegated in importance within the Government are bound to miss, perhaps, that it offers a huge opportunity. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), the Labour representative on the Convention said today:
	"The process in the convention was riddled with imperfections and moulded by a largely unaccountable political elite, set on a particular outcome from the . . . start . . . There are certain provisions in there which I think the British government would find unacceptable."
	Professor Neil MacCormick, MEP, head of constitutional law at Edinburgh university for 20 years and the SNP representative on the Convention said:
	"At this time, public opinion leans strongly towards transferring substantial powers back to Member States or to Zonal Management Authorities involving regional groups of Member States. It is quite unacceptable to enact a new constitutional entrenchment that will make any change in practice harder to achieve".
	Putting into the Convention, as an exclusive competence, a failed policy such as the common fisheries policy is a step backwards, or a step further into the mire into which successive Governments have taken the industry.
	The question that fishing communities ask is, I suppose, the same question that was asked after the revelations that 30 years ago they were considered in the European negotiations as "expendable" in the light of Britain's wider interests. That is not something that those in the fishing community have made up—civil service documents released under the 30-year rule stated that the Government of the day regarded Scottish fishermen as "expendable" in the light of Britain's wider interests. We suspect that in common with Lord Owen, Lady Thatcher and John Major's Government, the present Government still regard those fishermen as expendable in the light of other negotiations.
	Why cannot fishing be a red line issue? Why cannot fishing be the priority in negotiations? Why cannot the unanimity that is required within the European Convention and the intergovernmental conference be used to extract concessions and the dismantling of the common fisheries policy, which has caused so much damage to our fishing communities?
	I do not doubt the good intentions of the Fisheries Minister, I merely say to him as gently as I can that whereas he has been in office for 180 days, I have been representing the Banff and Buchan fishing community for 16 years in this place. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby has been representing his constituents since before recorded parliamentary history in this place. What has drawn us and others to the conclusion that the CFP is fundamentally flawed and needs to be dismantled? It is not party political banter. It is not talking about who said what and when. It is the effect that the policy has had on once thriving fishing communities. It is the damage that the policy is still inflicting on the industry that we have left. It is the lost opportunity of a magnificent crop of haddock not being accessible to fishing boats, to fish processors and to the fishing support industry, which require it at a time when any rational policy would set out that that should be done. In a private meeting with the Minister last week I quoted remarks made by David Griffith, the head of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, in a radio debate that we had in late October. He said that if ICES had the information, it would have made the same recommendation as we have about the haddock stock. Instead of telling me that I was quoting David Griffith out of context, which I was not, the Minister should make sure that fishing opportunities are realised and, just once, ensure that the fishing industry and our communities are a priority for Westminster Government.

Joan Humble: Like many Members in the Chamber, for the past few years I have talked about the depressing situation of our fishing industry and the European quotas. This year, paradoxically, the backdrop to our debate is, for the fishermen of Fleetwood in my constituency, a success story in the Irish sea, which makes the cuts that they now face all the more bewildering.
	I should like to clarify a point that I made in an intervention on the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). I referred to the Irish sea cod recovery programme, which he interpreted as support for the common fisheries policy. However, I should like to point out that nobody in the Chamber thinks that the CFP is an unmitigated success. In my own constituency, the fishing fleet has deteriorated and declined over the past 10 years. However, I should like to emphasise the fact that the fishermen of Fleetwood and many of the fishing communities around the Irish sea accept that fish stocks need to be conserved if they are to have hope for the future. They want fairness from the CFP for all the different national vessels that fish the Irish sea, and have worked hard to make sure that the CFP works.
	We are now in the fourth year of that policy, and the fishermen tell me that when they go out they see not just more cod but more mature cod. They are catching mature cod, not codlings. They are therefore seeing the success of their investment, but have been told that they cannot profit from it. That is the difficulty that they are experiencing, and that is the message that the Minister must take to his meetings in Europe. There has been a reduction in the British fishing effort, and spawning stock biomass has increased. Unfortunately, however, the Belgians and the southern Irish have not decommissioned any of their fleet, and their catch of cod and plaice has gone up, while ours has gone down.
	The European Commission must accept that it will only secure support for its proposals if it manages to achieve a balance between stock recovery and vessel viability. Fleetwood fishermen need to earn a living, and whatever the Commission's decision, it must guarantee that. The Fleetwood fishermen have been working closely with other Irish sea communities, and have formed the Pan-Irish Sea Alliance, whose immediate priority is that
	"the biological distinctiveness of the Irish Sea and adjacent fisheries be fully recognised and taken into account by the Commission and Council of Ministers."
	Many fishermen who target the Irish sea are concerned that proposals that may be appropriate for the North sea or Scottish waters are not appropriate for the Irish sea—we need our own special measures and recognition of what mixed fishery means in the Irish sea.
	The objectives of the Pan-Irish Sea Alliance include the need for
	"central involvement of the fishing industry in all management decisions."
	I urge my hon. Friend the Minister, when considering reform of the CFP, to ensure that we get regional management for the fishing industry. PISA also calls for further
	"involvement of fishermen in the collation and interpretation of scientific data of all stocks and setting of management objectives."
	I repeat the point that many other people have made about the need to listen to fishermen. They have a voice and it is as important as the voice of the scientists.
	Another key objective is building fish stocks to optimum harvesting levels, recognising the natural fluctuations in species' levels. Those alter from year to year, and we should not panic and bring in draconian measures if a species' numbers go down one year, just as we should not allow over-fishing if the stocks go up a little in one year.
	In every annual debate I have argued that the voice of the fishermen must be listened to. That is why I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's comments that he is considering much closer working between fishermen and scientists. That will be vital. Such collaboration is set against huge reductions in quota over the past several years. In 1996 the cod quota from area VIIa was 288 tonnes. Next year it will be reduced by 75 per cent. In 1996 the sole quota was 83 tonnes. Next year it will be just 5 tonnes. That is a 94 per cent. reduction. The plaice quota will be down 85 per cent. since 1996 and the whiting quota will be down by 96 per cent.
	There is serious concern, especially about the proposals for a substantial reduction in plaice quota. Over the past three or four years of the cod recovery programme, because Fleetwood fishermen could not target cod, they targeted plaice. Now they are being told that they can catch a little more cod, but at the cost of not being able to catch the fish that they have been catching successfully over the past three years. The irony is that Irish sea plaice is being fished within safe biological limits. The advice from the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management in October was for a roll-over. Why is the advice now a 46 per cent. cut? What has happened between October and now?
	Fleetwood fishermen need an answer to that, because without that plaice quota, they will be in serious difficulties. They are concerned that they seem to be taking a disproportionate share of the pain of managing the cod recovery programme. They see Belgian beamers increasing their cod by-catch by a large amount—it went up from 283 tonnes in 2001 to 318 tonnes in 2002. In three months Belgian beamers—I cite them not because I am anti-Belgian, but because it is a blatant example of what is happening—are taking three times as much cod as the Fleetwood fish producers organisation is allowed for a year. That is not seen as fair by the fishermen of Fleetwood.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) mentioned, the advice from ICES is that the spawning biomass of cod has tripled. The Irish sea cod recovery programme is working, so why does the European Commission not recognise that Fleetwood fishermen, who contributed to that, should be allowed to earn a livelihood? The Commission seems to be linking the catching of cod with the catching of plaice. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider whether that link exists. Fleetwood fishermen tell me that when they catch plaice, they are not catching cod. The plaice quota could be increased while protecting the improvement in cod stocks.
	Tom Watson of the Fleetwood fish producers organisation is quoted in Fishing News of 5 December as saying:
	"Fleetwood's fishing industry is not dead by a long way. There are people in it who are doing well, but it can't take any more knocks. We will fight tooth and nail to stop a cod ban or any quota cuts."
	So will I. I am standing up to defend the fishermen of my community, and I urge my hon. Friend to fulfil the promise that he made at the beginning of his address to us that he will defend fishing communities and, if there are cuts that are disproportionate and not justified by science, he will fight against them. I urge him in the strongest terms to do that at the Council of Ministers meeting.

Ian Paisley: I have been in this House longer than most Members sitting around me today—more than 30 years in the House and 25 years in Europe—and this is a matter of great seriousness; it is not a party political issue. It unites all the people who are associated with and know the needs of the fishing industry and what it faces.
	No one would say that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and the hon. Member for North Antrim agree on the big issues in Northern Ireland, but we agree on this. I should like to put it on record that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he graciously hung up all over Northern Ireland a beautiful photograph of me and my son. It is not very often that the opposition puts out photographs of its opposition, and I am grateful, but it did not have the decency to send me a copy. I had to go round and get one when the election was over.

Eddie McGrady: I guarantee to send the hon. Gentleman an autographed photograph.

Ian Paisley: The photograph was auctioned for my election, and I obtained a massive sum—I will not say how much—but what money a photograph autographed by the hon. Gentleman could bring in. I thank him. I await the day.
	The House should remember that when we joined the Common Market, as it was then, we controlled, owned and had sovereignty over a vast stretch of territorial waters. We were told by people who wanted us to join the Common Market that, as the voting was based on a weighted majority, we would always be able to protect our fishermen. But the fishing industry today is only a slight shadow of what it was. This jewel in the crown of industry has been taken away from us bit by bit. Those who control it are interested not in the well-being of fisherman in Britain, but in the well-being of fishermen in their own countries, and, unlike Britain, those countries do not police the regulations against fishermen—and they get away with it.
	Our once prosperous fleet is tiny today. In 1993, 213 commercial fishing vessels were registered in the Northern Ireland fishing fleet. By the beginning of 2003, that had been reduced to 136, and with the continuing decommissioning schemes the number has now been reduced to around 110. Since 1999, the average profit, before depreciation, of a Northern Irish-based whitefish trawler has fallen by 76 per cent. to £10,400. The average profit of a nephrop trawler has fallen by 48 per cent. to £15,600. That is a reflection of the imposition of four years of temporary closures in the spring of the year, which have removed the whitefish fleet's main fishing season and led to an increased supply of nephrops undermining the market for all nephrop fishermen.
	I speak for the fishermen who have asked me to take part in this debate tonight, and if this plan, or any semblance of it, goes through, it will sound the final death knell of the local fishing fleet, and I am sure that my friend across the way, the hon. Member for South Down, will agree with that, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) who represents the other large part of the fishing industry in South Down. This is a very serious matter.
	I was saddened at the start of the debate when the Minister said that he felt that there was something wrong in respect of fishermen and scientists. I sat in a meeting at Brussels—I would like him to remember this—and we argued the matter out. The fishermen said, "All right, you say that the scientists want to hear our side," and they named a boat, appointed a day and gave a schedule so that the scientists could go out in the boat with them, allowing them to show the scientists what they saw when they were at sea. Not one of the scientists turned up. I must ask why. I am glad that the Minister has said that encouragement is being given, as there is a battle between certain scientists and the fishermen, who think that the truth is not being fully told.
	The time has come when that obstacle must be overcome. The scientists must see that they can make mistakes and recognise that, while the fishermen are filled with zeal about keeping their fisheries, they are also the friend of the fish. If the fish are destroyed, their activity will be destroyed as well. Let us think of the fishermen. They do not want to put out of existence their own industry.
	The Minister will face a difficult situation, as this decision will be taken not on the truth but on politics. Let no one in this House be mistaken about that. For all any of us know tonight, it is probably all fixed, fiddled and finished. If it is fixed, fiddled and finished, it will have dire consequences for our fishing industry and we will see the result in coming days. This is not a matter of being for or against the European Union or of what view we take of the constitution, but a matter of the well-being of our fishing industry. If the European Commission cannot look after our industry, let us look after it ourselves. What is wrong with that? Is there something immoral in a nation looking after its own fishing industry and in a person saying "We gave you the job and you failed; we do not have any waters or territorial claims, we have given everything that we could give and, at the end of the day, we have seen our fishing industry lost to society"?
	In Northern Ireland, we cannot afford the loss of one job, let alone of this whole industry, as it feeds a number of fishing villages. In those villages, fishing provides employment. Once we close down the boats, we will close down the village and the future of the men and women, and boys and girls, in that village.
	I know a little about Europe and I say to the Minister that I pity him. He faces a hard task. One does not know why a man leaves a meeting and comes in again having had a road to Damascus experience. He will have suddenly changed because something has been offered to him—a pay-off. Our fishermen should not accept a pay-off. They deserve what is right, and I trust that the Minister will succeed in getting what is right for them.

Lawrie Quinn: Yet again, I have the sense of "Groundhog Day" that I get at this time of year. I hope to keep my remarks brief so that at least one other Opposition Member representing a fishing community might say their piece for that community.
	This morning, I was looking at this year's census figures. It staggered me to find out that only 138 people declared themselves as working in the fishing industry in my constituency. Even that number, if we extend it using the conventional multiplier of eight, means that about 1,000 people in my constituency work in the fishing industry. That is still a significant number.
	The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) spoke of the road to Damascus. From the perspective of my constituents, I wish the Minister well on his road to Brussels, and I hope that he tries to achieve the best he can from those negotiations.
	As is traditional in this debate, we have already been told that, sadly, people die in the fishing industry every year. I am passionate about health and safety at work; it is a policy area to which I have tried to commit a lot of time, and I hope that the Minister will have the fullest regard to the perils that people in my constituency face when they go to sea. When he is considering subjects such as days at sea, I hope that he will understand the pressures that people going out to sea face as they try to maximise their achievement in reclaiming the harvest that they feel is their own.
	The Minister knows only too well that the current chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations in England is one of my constituents, Mr. Arnold Locker, and that one of his close colleagues is Mr. Fred Normandale, the master of the Alliance fishing organisation in Scarborough. He knows those two individuals very well. He talked at some length about his concerns about enforcement and the pressure that the Commission is bringing to bear on the British fishing industry, and I ask him to have due regard to the recent court case in which Mr. Locker, Mr. Normandale and seven other of my constituents faced charges for allegedly breaching the enforcement measures.
	As the Minister knows, since the summer I have been trying to have a conversation with him, but, regrettably, for some reason his diary did not permit that conversation to take place. There is a need to bring not only the inspectors but everyone involved in enforcement, especially in the English industry, round the table to think about how they can try to manage that difficult area.
	The Minister will know that the case was thrown out, at considerable cost to his Department, because the breach was alleged to have occurred a month before the notice and the regulation took effect. The fact that such a fundamental mistake could be made, wasting much time and money and causing great distress to my constituents, is a disgrace, and I urge the Minister to go back to his Department and try to encourage the more co-operative partnership approach that he described earlier.
	Like many of my constituents, I regarded the Prime Minister's intervention earlier this year, and his commissioning of a strategic report on the fishing industry, as quite hopeful. The report is very timely, but there is also major scepticism about it, not least on the part of Mr. Fred Normandale, who was quoted in the local newspaper as saying that it was rather like trying to rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic. That conveys the sense of beleaguerment felt by many people who face the perils of the sea daily, when they consider the measure about which we hope we will hear conclusions in the near future.
	Finally, I shall offer a little glimmer of hope and try to look beyond the difficult times that many people in my constituency and in the rest of the industry now face. In Whitby, there is a small success story. A sea fishing school has about a dozen apprentices learning their craft onshore before they go out to sea. I am pleased that youngsters wanting a career in the fishing industry come to Whitby from all over the UK, with the aim of learning how to ply their trade at sea.
	I want my hon. Friend the Minister to take the message from Scarborough and Whitby to the difficult negotiations in Brussels. I want him to have regard for the youngsters who seek a future at sea. I notice that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), is sitting on the Front Bench next to the Minister. She knows only too well the difficulties faced by families who earn their living by going to sea in boats. Those people need skill and craft, but above all they need the hope that they have a sustainable future.
	I wish my hon. Friend the Minister well in his attempts to secure the best outcome for this country.

Alistair Carmichael: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn), who favoured us with a cogent and thoughtful analysis of the industry's problems. I endorse in particular his remarks about the problems of enforcement. I hope that the Minister will take them on board.
	It bears saying that this debate is not about fish alone, but about people living in communities that depend on fish. It is difficult to overstate the importance of this issue to my constituency. As I did my tour of the outer isles of my constituency this summer, more than 100 people turned up to the Symbister hall in Whalsay to lobby me on the state of the fishing industry.
	One of the most difficult things that I have ever had to do was to stand up in the Lerwick mission hall on 19 December last year, six days before Christmas, and face more than 100 skippers and crew members. I had to try to explain the bad, corrupt and downright deceitful deal foisted on them by people in Brussels. It was a vicious deal, and they were its victims. They were staring ruin in the face—that is the human cost of the decisions taken last year. I do not believe for one second that Franz Fischler could have been a party to that deal if he had had to stand where I had to stand on that day. That is why I say that the remoteness of Brussels in respect of fishing cannot be overstated.
	We in Shetland have taken our share of the pain. Two years ago, we had a white fish fleet of 27 vessels fishing out of Lerwick, but today we have a fleet of 14. In the intervening period, the Zenith, the Harmony, the Donvale II, the Shannon, the Brighter Dawn, the Neptune, the Fear Not, the Madalia, the Langdale, the Andromeda, the Lomur, the Auriga, the Heatherbelle, and the Sarah Joan have either been decommissioned or sold. They have been lost to our community: 40 per cent. of the vessel capacity units have now been removed from the Shetland white fish fleet.
	It is not just about the boats, but about the jobs that go with them. It is not just about the jobs on deck, either, but about the onshore jobs associated with them. I want to impress on the Minister the fact that we have suffered the pain, and are now looking for some of the gain. We are looking for a bit more stability in fisheries management. I want the Minister to accept the message, and to take it to Brussels with him, that there is now opportunity for growth in certain areas.
	I turn first to the question of cod stocks. Figures from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea show that there has been a 59 per cent. increase in those stocks in the past two years. If that increase is repeated this year—and the extent of decommissioning over the past 12 months means that that may be a conservative estimate—it is reasonable to expect that the spawning stock biomass of cod in the North sea will be in the region of 69,000 tonnes next year. The ICES figures show that 70,000 tonnes is the minimum safe biological level. Therefore, the ICES proposal earlier this year for a total closure of cod was completely ill judged. At the same time, recruitment to the cod stocks has stabilised and, more important, the cod mortality fishing rate is now half what it was in 2000. In fact, it is at its lowest since 1979.
	With a little imagination, there is an opportunity to explore the way in which spatial management might be used to decouple cod stocks from those of haddock. I have already made the point to the Minister about the opportunities that are provided by annexe V and the proposal to allow 22 days at sea for those boats that are able to take less than 5 per cent. of their catch from cod. However, that will be of little benefit to anyone if it excludes boats that, in previous years, have a track record of taking more than 5 per cent. That is one fight that must be winnable for our white fish fleet, and it would make a remarkable difference to the situation in which it finds itself.
	I share the irritation of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) about the impression that, in some way or another, the North sea has been denuded of fish. I met an academic this morning who, at the end of our time together, told me that a fish van visited his village. He said that he liked to buy haddock from that van, but he was a bit concerned that buying haddock would affect the cod stocks. He knew that the level of cod stocks was critical. I told him that he was probably buying imported haddock so we perhaps should not go into that matter. However, I explained that if he was eating mature haddock, he would probably improve the recruitment to cod, so that his continuing to eat haddock might, in fact, do the cod a favour. If he really wants to help the stock of cod or that of any other species in the North sea, the one thing that he might do is stop eating Danish bacon. That is the ultimate destination of the sand eels and immature by-catch that industrial fishermen remove from the North sea.
	As I have said to the Minister before, surely any proper application of the precautionary principle would mean that, instead of saying that the case that industrial fishing is damaging had not been proved, that point should be taken as self-evident. The burden of proof should be on the industrial fishermen to show that they are not damaging fish stocks by taking the amount that they do from the food chain.
	The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan also mentioned monkfish. I emphasise the importance of monkfish to the fishermen in my constituency. My understanding is much the same as his. I believe that the stock levels that are prepared by ICES are made on the basis of landings and that there are no trawling data available specifically for monkfish. That is possibly because monkfish are inevitably a by-catch from other species; there is no targeted fishing of monkfish. Let us consider the figures. There was a 31 per cent. increase in the spawning stock biomass of monkfish this year, and there has been a 50 per cent. reduction in their fishing mortality over the past three years. The increased flexibility that the industry seeks for monkfish is crucial to the continued survival of a very fragile white fish fleet.
	Sadly, nothing has been said about the pelagic sector, which is also of great importance to my constituency. It is healthy at present, but we must recognise that, like every other fishery sector, it will always remain vulnerable to bureaucratic micro-management from the centre. As others have said, we have an abundance of herring, but I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) to what is said in the briefing supplied by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. In relation to pelagic stocks and herring, it says:
	"The proposed increase of 11 per cent . . . in the southern component is less prudent."
	That is a very responsible attitude for the federation to take.
	We have also seen a slight downturn in the numbers of mackerel, but I hope that the Minister will take on board the concerns in the pelagic sector that an 8 per cent. reduction in the mackerel TAC is excessive and unnecessary. It is an over-reaction.
	At this time of year, we always wish the Minister well. Indeed, we could not wish him anything other. He has a massive task ahead of him. I very much hope that he is equal to it, because the survival of fishing communities in my constituency, as in so many other places in this country, depends on his success.

Peter Duncan: It gives me pleasure to respond to the debate. The Opposition attach importance to the industry in Scotland, so it is a matter of some regret that the Secretary of State for Scotland has not managed to find time in his diary to be with us today, not least in view of the effect on the economy of the disaster affecting the fishing industry, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) demonstrated, represents in excess of £780 million. Scotland will judge the Secretary of State's absence.
	In the short time available, I must point to the incredible situation in which not one Back-Bench contribution gave unqualified support for the common fisheries policy. It has been a striking attribute of the debate that not one person free of the Government's whipping stood up to defend that which is doubtless indefensible. Indeed, only the Government are out of step with public opinion in the communities and opinion in the House.
	The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) rightly said that the debate is not about numbers or ships; it is about communities, people, families and family businesses. Yesterday and the day before, I was in Pittenweem, Peterhead and Fraserburgh. I learned there of the devastation of the industry. In Fraserburgh, 600 jobs have gone since 1997 and people cannot look with certainty towards a fishing industry course at the local college next year. That scale of devastation in the industry is truly one that we cannot contemplate, and I am pleased to reassure hon. Members that the Opposition will not countenance it for much longer. I was presented with a photograph that amply demonstrates the cost to the British taxpayer of tearing up Scottish fishing vessels, which we learn are being built elsewhere with that same UK taxpayers' money.
	For the avoidance of doubt, the CFP has been an environmental, ecological, social, commercial and economic disaster that Her Majesty's Opposition will not tolerate for any longer than is necessary. The communities in Scotland and the UK as a whole that are affected will want to hear explicit confirmation of our plans. We will shortly commence work with industry representatives on our strategy for managing our fish resources once we return to national control. However, we must not equivocate. One of the first priorities for the next Conservative Government will be negotiating the return of national control of our fishing.
	We do not underestimate the price that our fishing communities have paid, and unlike the Government and the Minister, we are not complacent about the price that will still be paid between now and the general election. Shortly after it, the political will required to remove us from the disaster of a CFP will be provided by Her Majesty's official Opposition when we return to government. The communities affected will not be disappointed by the priority that we give to this matter. For too long—for 30 years too long—our communities have paid a high price. They will not pay that price for much longer.

Ben Bradshaw: It may be helpful to tell hon. Members—it may save their knee joints—that I am not going to take any interventions as I have only three or four minutes in which to speak. I think I was pretty generous in taking interventions during my opening remarks.
	We have had a wide-ranging and mainly constructive debate that understandably concentrated on those parts of the fishing industry that are under pressure and highlighted concerns in advance of next week's all-important annual Fisheries Council. Before turning to those concerns, let me thank those Members in the Chamber who reminded the House that the fishing industry is more than the commercial white fish fleet.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) rightly emphasised the importance of recreational fishing, which is worth £3 billion to the UK economy every year. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) emphasised the importance of the fish processing industry, which is doing well in many parts of the UK. My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) stressed the health of the nephrops stocks off the west coast of Scotland. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), who leads on fisheries for the Liberal Democrats, reminded the House that the crab and lobster fisheries in the south-west of England are thriving. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) spoke about the healthy state of the pelagic stocks, and, finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) made an important speech about the importance of safety in the fisheries industry. I associate myself entirely with his remarks about the sacrifice that fishermen make in a dangerous profession. He also rightly pointed to the importance of the forthcoming publication in the new year of the Prime Minister's strategy unit report on fisheries. I remind the House that this is the first time for 30 years that any Government of any political colour have had a proper long-term strategic look at the future of the fishing industry.
	Let me turn to the matters that are at the forefront of most right hon. and hon. Members' minds: the forthcoming Council and the particular stocks that are under pressure. I am happy to give an assurance that I have listened to and will take into account the points made by individual Members in the debate this afternoon who admirably represented their own local industry interests.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles asked about nephrops and a zonal approach off the west of Scotland. The special position of the Irish sea was highlighted by the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I reassure them that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson), does an excellent job of representing Northern Ireland interests. I meet him regularly, just as I work closely with my colleague Ross Finnie and the Scottish Executive. We work in parallel, representing United Kingdom interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) made a case on behalf of her fishermen in Fleetwood. Scottish and North sea Members want, as I do, to see maximum decoupling between cod and other species whose stocks are healthy.
	Those were all sensible and constructive suggestions about how to fight for the best possible deal for our fishing industry. We want to fight for fishing opportunities while ensuring that the stocks under threat are allowed to recover. Several hon. Members advocated a constructive working relationship with our EU partners and securing a better deal through a genuinely reformed common fisheries policy. I associate myself absolutely with the comments of the hon. Member for St. Ives about making faster progress with regional advisory councils.
	Conservative Front Benchers are deluding themselves—and, I am afraid, the House—if they believe that all the problems of the UK fishing industry can be solved by a unilateral repatriation of fishing rights to the UK and a unilateral withdrawal from the common fisheries policy. Even if that were possible without leaving the EU as a whole—and anyone who knows anything about the matter knows that it is not—it would leave an isolated UK having to renegotiate with the whole of the rest of the European Union and the other nations to which they referred in the debate from a position of weakness and isolation. The idea that they could get a better deal for this country under those circumstances is, I am afraid, a cruel deception on the UK fishing industry.
	I welcome the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) to his new position, but—
	It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to Order [8 December].

Shona McIsaac: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you explain why the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) was given 13 minutes to contribute to the debate? As far as I am aware, she does not represent a fishing community. I am such a representative, yet I was not called in the debate, so the voice of the fishing industry in Grimsby and Cleethorpes was not heard. What are the rules on time and constituency interest?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) was allotted the standard time allowed in debates. As to the other point mentioned by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), the fact that Mr. Speaker imposed a time limit on the debate demonstrated his wish to try to get as many Members as possible to contribute to it.

Roy Beggs: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to point out that many hon. Members did not have an opportunity to contribute to the debate, even though there is a crisis in the fishing industry. I ask those who organise Government affairs to take that into account for future debates.

Madam Deputy Speaker: We cannot go back to the debate now, but the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) has put his remarks on the record.

BROADCASTING

Ordered,
	That, for the purposes of its approval, the Amendment (Cm. 6075), dated 4th December 2003, to the Agreement (Cm. 3152) dated 25th January 1996 (as amended by the Amendment (Cm. 4797), dated 3rd July 2000), between the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the British Broadcasting Corporation, shall be treated as if it were an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

MODERNISATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

Ordered,
	That Mr David Cameron be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Mr Oliver Heald be added.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

PETITIONS
	 — 
	RAF Stafford

David Kidney: The Ministry of Defence is carrying out a review of air combat service support units that could have a catastrophic effect on RAF Stafford. That is why, in just the last three weeks, some 5,000 residents of Stafford and the surrounding area have signed a petition backing RAF Stafford. The first signature on the first page is, fittingly, the first citizen of Stafford borough and current mayor, Councillor John Russell. Also among the signatories is the chairman of Staffordshire county council, Councillor Eddie Boden. The number and range of signatures shows the depth of feeling and the concern in my community about the future of RAF Stafford.
	The prayer reads:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call on the Secretary of State for Defence to acknowledge the operational effectiveness of RAF Stafford, its commitment to tri-service working, provision of Cadet training and contribution to local recruitment to all HM Forces; urge him not to remove from RAF Stafford the majority of its uniformed personnel and to recognise that to do so would undermine the viability of the rest of the base's activities; assure him that the loss of RAF Stafford would seriously damage the local economy and good community relations between the Ministry of Defence and the civil population; and invite him to give the Petitioners an assurance that his Ministry's review shall have regard to the serious long-term implications for the whole community of Stafford.
	And the Petitioners remain etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Travellers

Andrew Selous: I wish to present a petition from three small villages in my constituency, signed by 1,835 of my constituents, about the establishment of residential communities by travellers on non-residential land, without planning permission. It is a subject of enormous concern and upset to my constituents. It is also a matter of concern to me that the Government have had three occasions on which they could have tried to rectify the matter and have done nothing. They talked out the private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) on this subject, and we had an Adjournment debate in the summer—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a speech is not appropriate on this occasion.

Andrew Selous: I am coming to the petition itself, but it is a source of concern that opportunities to do something about the problem have not been taken.
	The petition reads as follows:
	To the House of Commons
	The petition of the residents of Billington, Stanbridge and the surrounding areas, Declares that the law is inadequate to prevent Travellers setting up residential communities on non-residential land without prior planning permission, and that specifically, the petitioners are concerned about the extreme speed of the recent development on Stanbridge Road, Billington, Bedfordshire.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to change the law relating to the unlawful use of non-residential land by travellers who set up residential communities without planning permission, and give local authorities new powers to enable them to halt such unauthorised development more easily.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Uttoxeter Jobcentre

Janet Dean: I wish to present a petition from my constituents and people in areas around Uttoxeter who are concerned about the proposal to close the Uttoxeter jobcentre, leaving a large area of Staffordshire without that important local service.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of the people of Uttoxeter,
	Declares that proposals to close Uttoxeter Jobcentre will have a detrimental effect on customer service and an adverse effect on the local economy.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to re-examine the decision to close Uttoxeter Jobcentre and to maintain the full provision of Jobcentre Plus services in Uttoxeter.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

CHILDHOOD POVERTY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Patsy Calton: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this important topic in the House, especially given the nature of the statements that are likely to be made tomorrow.
	Although I acknowledge the many initiatives undertaken by the Government to alleviate the effects of poverty and to remove a number of children from the poverty statistics, I am sure that the Government themselves recognise that there is still much to do in this, the fourth richest country in the world. At first sight, it may seem odd that someone who represents what is on the face of it one of the wealthiest constituencies in terms of income should request this debate, but my early experiences as a community politician, subsequently backed up by a research study "Profiling Stockport" carried out in Stockport in 1995, led me to realise that more than half the poverty in our borough was hidden away in small pockets, well below ward level at district enumeration level. I have a persistent concern, therefore, that only a small part of the problem is being addressed. Children are suffering, and ultimately society suffers, too.
	Before I go into the statistics, which are a disgrace in a country that aspires to call itself civilised, I want to thank some of the organisations that do such good work in the field and have been generous with their time in assisting me.
	Barnardo's, which shocked us with its advertising campaign—I confess that I was disgusted by it—has nevertheless ensured that few people could miss the point. The pictures jangled a raw nerve. Indeed, I am little annoyed with myself, because I thought for a while that my sensibilities were more important than the suffering of children—they are not, and Barnardo's has done us all a service.
	Save the Children provided me with information that makes it clear that the transition between work and benefits causes many children to fall into severe poverty. One does not have to look far to see that, to deal with part of the problem, we need not to throw extra money at it but to ensure that there is a more timely application of the money that is due in benefits. The failure to implement the new system at the Child Support Agency, alongside the failings of the previous system, has thrown many lone parents into debt and poverty.
	The change from the working families tax credit to the child tax credit left families on low earnings without their entitlement, for months in some cases. Some months ago, I was concerned when I heard a Minister say on the "Today" programme that the only outstanding cases were those in which applications had not been adequately completed. The truth is that some families who had already completed the forms were asked to fill in another set, even though those forms asked for no more information than had been correctly supplied in the first place. I do not doubt for a minute that the Minister believed that she was telling the truth, but I hope that Ministers look behind some of the information supplied by officials from the organisations that are supposedly administering the system for the very real hardship that is being caused.
	In a response to the Gracious Speech, the Equal Opportunities Commission made the case for a public sector duty to promote equality between men and women. That would have a direct impact on child care provision in the public sector. Good-quality child care, available for the working day, would do more than anything to lift women and their children out of poverty.
	I have been sent the submissions made by the Child Poverty Action Group and Save the Children to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions inquiry into child poverty. The Child Poverty Action Group submitted a powerful document, which, while applauding the Government's intention to examine measures to make faster progress on eradicating child poverty, draws together several studies that show how much remains to be done.
	The statistics for 2001–02 on households below average income showed that 3.8 million children, or one in three, were living in income poverty, compared with 1.9 million in 1979. Of those 3.8 million children, 55 per cent. were living with a couple and 45 per cent. with a lone parent; 52 per cent. with a family in which one or more members of the household worked full-time—work does not always protect families; 48 per cent. in a workless household; 45 per cent. in a family with three or more children; 25 per cent. in a household in which one or more adults had a disability; 47 per cent. in a family whose youngest child was under five; and 16 per cent. in London.
	The risk is not shared equally across all household types: 54 per cent. of children in lone parent households live in income poverty, compared with 22 per cent. in couple families. Children in households with no adult working are at significantly greater risk of income poverty, at 79 per cent. However, one in five children in poverty live in households with at least one adult working. Half of children in families with four or more children live in poverty. Children from black and minority ethnic households are more at risk of income poverty, as are travellers' and asylum seekers' children.
	As the CPAG says, growing up in poverty has adverse consequences for children. The effects are manifested in different ways on physical health and development, learning, behaviour and emotional well-being. The result is that children are prevented from realising their full potential. It is not far from there to the proposition, which I argue, that those individual consequences for children and the older people they grow into have a profound and negative effect on our whole society.
	What, then, does poverty mean for the children? Children have been defined as deprived if their parents cannot afford one or more of the necessities listed in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation survey "Poverty and Social Exclusion" published in 2000. It found that 34 per cent. of children lacked one or more items and that 18 per cent. lacked two or more. About 1 million children—8 per cent.—have been identified as severely poor on three measures: income poverty, child deprivation and parental deprivation, the latter two of which involve parents and children going without what most people would consider necessities. About 13 per cent. of that 8 per cent. lack a warm waterproof coat; 17 per cent. do not have new, properly fitted shoes; 18 per cent. do not have enough underpants; 31 per cent. do not get meat, fish or a vegetarian equivalent twice each day; 21 per cent. do not get fresh fruit and vegetables daily.
	In 1998, the Acheson inquiry—an independent inquiry into inequalities in health—highlighted the fact that low-income mothers were not able to afford an adequate and healthy diet. There is a link between low birth weight and social class, and low birth weight may influence later cognitive function and educational performance. Breast feeding is better for babies, but those in lower income groups are less likely to breast feed. Pilot studies where mothers are supported through breast feeding have proved beneficial, but what is being done elsewhere? The CPAG study "Poverty Bites: food health and poor families" challenges the notion that families in poverty have only themselves to blame for poor diet. Parents go without so that their children can eat, but those diets are still likely to be of poor quality.
	I am pleased that the appalling suggestion that poor expectant and nursing mothers should have to go through hoops to receive the welfare food benefits that the state believes they need was removed from the Health and Social Care (Community Health Standards) Act 2003, when it was debated in the other place. On a related theme, any suggestion that the benefits that affect families with children in poverty should be withdrawn because of family or personal behaviour must be rejected.
	Sure Start, while undoubtedly beneficial to those who receive it, has not necessarily reached those in greatest poverty, and Save the Children is particularly concerned. Early years centres need to be extended to more areas. On the positive side, the Government's school fruit initiative is a good start in schools, but they need to do more to ensure that all food available at school, including that at breakfast clubs, and early years establishments is of good quality and supports a healthy, mixed diet. I will not go on yet again about junk food and drinks machines in schools, as the Government have got the message.
	There is clear evidence that children living in poverty do less well at school. They go to school hungry and feel stigmatised by their clothing and shoes, as well as by their inability to take full part in activities paid for by more well-off parents. In my area, the children from one enumeration district do significantly less well in a local school that has very good results overall. The problem is that those children do not register on the radar that determines funding for their special needs.
	I argued during the last local government spending review that it is wrong that children from similar backgrounds or with similar disabilities receive very different funding from the state for their education. In 2002, only 59 per cent. of children receiving free school meals reached the expected key stage 3 levels, while 70 per cent. of those not needing school meals or not receiving them did so. Schools in the poorest communities have between 10 per cent. and 25 per cent. of children achieving five GCSE passes at grades A to C, compared with a national average of almost 50 per cent. Nearly 90 per cent. of failing schools are in areas of deprivation and have a large proportion of children eligible for free school meals.
	Lack of facilities for study at home and the extra pressures of school breaks cause additional problems. One fifth of children have no holiday because of financial constraints. Poverty that is in some way visible tends to result in children being treated differently from their peers. There are clear financial implications when stigmatising benefits are not taken up.
	The Government targets—the Treasury public service agreement—aimed to reduce child poverty by a quarter by 2004–05. Before the 2001 general election, the Government said that they had lifted 1.2 million children out of poverty, measured as children in households below 60 per cent. of median income. The 2002 manifesto pledged to lift another 1 million children out of poverty. In a speech at the time, the Chancellor promised that that would be achieved by 2005. The reduction between 1996–97 and 2000–01 was in fact 500,000, according to the households below average income figures for 2000–01—a little short of the promised 1 million. Even if the Government meet their 10-year target, according to Save the Children that would still leave the UK with the highest child poverty rate in Europe.
	The Institute for Fiscal Studies has indicated that the Government are likely to miss their target of fewer than 3.1 million children in poverty in 2004–05 by 200,000—some estimates say 300,00—unless further measures are taken to improve financial support. Latest figures suggest that an additional £5 per week increase in benefit for every child living in a low-income family is needed to ensure that the poverty reduction targets are met.
	In Budget 2003, the Chancellor made clear his intention to advance faster towards his child poverty reduction goals. It is not clear, however—and will not be until the review of child poverty measures is published by the Department for Work and Pensions—exactly what the goals are against which faster progress is to be made. I hope that we will not simply see a change in the counting methods with the statements likely to be made tomorrow. Although 60 per cent. below median income is not easy to understand, it provides a reliable measure that can be checked from one year to the next. Clearly, however, the whole range of other indicators have a part to play. I was interested to find that in my constituency, which, again, is regarded as wealthy, figures for child tooth decay, for example, are considerably higher than average, at 1.67 missing, filled and decayed teeth at age five. It seems to me that such statistics could be used reliably.
	Good-quality public services such as health, education, housing and transport are required by people living in poverty. However, there is no evidence that local authorities and health services use resources to reflect the consequences of child poverty or to tackle the issue. Simply focusing on areas deemed to be deprived will miss over half the poverty. The Secondary Heads Association estimates that education funding for deprivation misses two thirds of children living in poverty. Families in poverty have a greater need for services but often less access to them. I believe that that is called the inverse care law.
	The CPAG says:
	"There needs to be an explicit commitment by every spending department to the goal of eradicating child poverty with poverty related targets".
	I agree. The Local Government Association says:
	"Local Government is a key player in the battle to reduce child poverty".
	I agree with that, too. Local government must recognise, however, that it cannot be a key player if it refuses to change its way of working. Children's social services, education, housing and health must work together, and children's trusts provide a way forward.
	It seems that the Government have rejected the notion of a minimum income standard, but the CPAG believes that one should be established and used as the basis of social security benefit rates. It says that the minimum income standard should be enhanced if a person has a disability—I agree with that, too.
	Maximising take-up of benefits is absolutely crucial, because as many as 600,000 families did not take up the working families tax credit. Underpayments and overpayments need specific care in line with Save the Children's work on the increased rate of severe poverty and the interface between work and benefits. The CPAG recommends writing off administrative errors involving overpayment. That would be entirely consistent with the recognition that families in severe poverty find it almost impossible to pay back overpayments.
	The social fund is not working. According to Save the Children, some 13 per cent. of children in persistent poverty have parents with social fund debts, while only 4 per cent. of such parents have loans. Both the CPAG and the Liberal Democrats believe that the funding to be used for the child trust fund would be better spent on alleviating poverty in the early years.
	The Government have the opportunity to seize the issue, and seize it they must if they are to embrace their declared aims. The Department of Health today published the document "Building on the Best". I welcome the Secretary of State for Health's determination to make the NHS
	"a responsive service that provides the patient with the best possible experience".
	I hope that the same attitude will pervade the Department for Work and Pensions as it tackles child poverty. People who live on low incomes and benefits should be treated with respect and dignity. Too often the benefits system loses sight of the very people whom it is supposed to help. The level of child poverty in this country is shameful to us all and it will stay that way until every child is brought up in a household with sufficient to meet what most of us regard as the necessities of life.

Chris Pond: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) on securing a debate on childhood poverty in the United Kingdom. I know from the quality of her representations this evening and her active interest in the area that we agree that the subject is a matter for constant attention because of the blight on children's opportunities that poverty causes. That is the very reason why we have pledged to eradicate child poverty by 2020 and halve it by 2010. As today's Joseph Rowntree Foundation report and the recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report show, we are making steady progress on that aim, although we fully recognise, as she suggests, that we have set ourselves ambitious targets and that there is more to do.
	I shall start by outlining why tackling child poverty is such a priority for us. Social justice and strong communities are absolutely central to this party and Government. Since 1997, we have worked hard—with real success—to tackle inequality and expand opportunities for all. Today's report for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which was prepared by the new policy institute, reports that
	"some significant milestones have now been passed"
	in tackling low incomes.
	We have done that in a new way by giving people the power to transform their own lives, their family and their community through a new and enabling welfare state. It is a modern welfare state that attempts not only to ameliorate poverty, but to tackle its root causes, thus giving people the opportunity to become active citizens, rather than the passive recipients of welfare. We need to break the cycle of disadvantage that too often in the past has led to poor children growing to be poor pensioners.
	That is why we are rebuilding the benefit system and my Department around the support of work for those who can work, while ensuring that support is there for those who cannot. Today's Rowntree report confirms:
	"Out of work benefits to both working-age families with dependent children and to pensioners have risen by around 30 per cent. in real terms since 1998, faster than earnings".
	However, for people of working age, there is now overwhelming evidence that the best route out of poverty is a job. Since 1997, we have helped nearly 2 million more people into permanent jobs and virtually eliminated long-term youth unemployment. For the first time ever, more than half of all lone parents are in work. The minimum wage and the system of tax credits are also designed to ensure that work pays, so that when people have a job they are lifted out of poverty.
	The hon. Lady referred to the implementation of the new tax credits, of which she was somewhat critical. We admitted that because the change is massive—the biggest change in support for families since the establishment of Beveridge's welfare state—there were difficulties in the early stages, and we have apologised to those families affected. She should recognise, however, that nearly 6 million families, containing more than 10 million children, are benefiting from the new tax credits. Combined with child benefit increases, child support for the first child has risen to £54.10p a week, twice as much as it was in 1997.
	Our crusade to tackle inequality starts where it should: with children. We should never forget that previous Conservative Governments witnessed a shameful increase in child poverty. By the time they opted out of the European social chapter, Britain accounted for a quarter of the poor children in the EU. The fact that not a single representative from the Conservative party is in the Chamber to hear this important debate shows how uninterested they are in the welfare of children and the problem of child poverty. The increase in child poverty that we experienced in those years cannot be tolerated by a civilised society. For that reason, we have set ourselves the most ambitious target to be set by any Government: we have pledged to eradicate child poverty in a generation, and we have wasted no time in starting on that task.
	Real rises in child benefit and the new tax credits have meant that all families with children are on average £1,200 a year better off and the poorest fifth of families are on average £2,500 a year better off. We have cut the number of people sleeping rough and are beginning to make in-roads into reducing the high rates of teenage pregnancy.
	I hope that the hon. Lady, as a former teacher, recognises the priority that we have attached to education in breaking cycles of deprivation. I know that she thinks we have not done enough, but more has been invested in education. There are smaller primary class sizes and a stronger emphasis on literacy and numeracy. We recognise, however, that many disadvantaged children are simply not ready to learn by the time they reach secondary school age. Research shows that the early years of a child's life are crucial to their welfare and future. Sure Start, to which the hon. Lady referred, is aimed precisely at addressing early childhood disadvantage by improving child care, health and family support in the most deprived areas. Local parents are directly involved in shaping provision to meet local needs.
	We have also matched new resources with demanding targets to reduce worklessness, maternal smoking and the number of children at risk and with learning and behavioural difficulties. We have concentrated efforts to boost family incomes on those with young children through, for example, the enhanced child tax credit available for babies. Our wider child care strategy has created new child care places for 1.3 million children, about 8,000 out-of-school clubs and a new curriculum for the early years that places a premium on play and learning.
	I think I heard the hon. Lady say that she opposed the child trust fund.

David Cairns: She did.

Chris Pond: My hon. Friend confirms it. The hon. Lady described herself as a community politician, but that message will not go down well on the doorsteps. For the first time in this nation's history, we have an opportunity for young people to start their lives with a nest egg, which could give them a stake in this country's future wealth.
	We are already seeing the results of the Government's commitment and investment. More than 500,000 children have been lifted out of low-income households since 1997. This means that we are making steady progress on our public service agreement target to reduce by a quarter the number of children in low-income households.
	I think that the hon. Lady confused the statistics and the commitments in that she suggested that we had promised to lift 1 million children out of poverty. We have said that the commitment is that the number of children in "low income" is more than a million lower now than it would have been if we had taken no action at all since 1997. The numbers in poverty would have continued to grow. As a result of the actions that we have taken, 500,000 children have been lifted out of low-income households since 1996.
	The hon. Lady will know from the interest that she has shown through parliamentary questions that we will announce the results of our consultation on long-term child poverty measurement before the end of the year.
	Poverty, as we have always said, is not just about low income, so it is encouraging to see progress in other domains too. For instance, the proportion of children living in houses that do not meet basic standards has fallen from 43 per cent. to 30 per cent. Schools in the most deprived areas have seen their results rise fastest. Teenage conceptions have fallen by more than 10 per cent. since we launched our teenage pregnancy strategy. The number of children living a household where nobody works has fallen by 350,000.
	Yet despite this success we cannot be complacent because we must not underestimate the scale of the challenges that we still face. Our strategy has to be an all-embracing one that addresses income, access to basic amenities and key services such as education and health. It must be one that balances support with personal responsibility. That is why employment is at the heart of our strategy to tackle poverty across all age groups.
	Once again, I welcome this debate and congratulate the hon. Lady on securing it and on her determination to keep the issue at the top of the agenda. I hope that I have been able to show that we are making real progress in tackling child poverty in the UK. However, we are under no illusion that the Government can go it alone. We cannot. If we are to win the fight against poverty, we will need to use every lever at our disposal: jobs; help for people who cannot work; and public services that deliver for us all.
	A partnership between the Government and all sectors—voluntary organisations to which the hon. Lady referred and to which I also pay tribute, and private, public, faith and community groups working together—is the best way to tackle poverty and support families. That is demonstrated by the fact that some of the best projects of recent years have partnership with community organisations at their heart, from Sure Start to the new deal for communities. We need to tap into that expertise continually to refine our strategy in line with what works on the ground.
	Today's British Social Attitudes report shows that the British people oppose the idea, in an increasingly prosperous society, that large numbers of our fellow citizens should live in poverty. They reject the Tory philosophy of cuts in public services and the claim that economic prosperity can be achieved only at the expense of social justice. We reject that philosophy as well.
	We are making progress in building the fairer society that people want, but there are no quick fixes to sort out problems that have developed over several decades. We have set ourselves an ambitious target and we are determined to deliver it. We are ready to be judged on whether we do.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Eight o'clock.